Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Warrant Sales

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the need to end the warrant sale system, he will call for an interim report from the Scottish Law Commission with a view to introducing legislation for the operation of a more satisfactory method of recovering debts.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The warrant sale system is only one, though important, aspect of the law of diligence. I believe that the best way to review it is within the context of the general review which the Commission already has in hand.

Mr. Dempsey: Has the Under-Secretary given earnest consideration to the fact that the unfortunate victims of warrant sales at times receive peanut prices for very valuable furniture and household equipment? Is he further aware that even a third party's goods have been confiscated under the present arrangement? In view of the urgency of the matter, will he expedite the report and introduce legislation to remove this iniquitous system?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter. The value realised for goods turns on the question whether the sale takes place in a person's home or in a sale room. This matter is entirely at

the discretion of the sheriff. On the other point, I should be interested to receive any evidence which the hon. Gentleman can give me.

Mr. Ross: There are many gaps in this system. I came across a case recently. There is no check by the person placing the advertisement and carrying on the sale whether the facts are as they are stated. Meantime, costs mount against quite innocent people. Is it not time for a realistic look at this matter once again?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern. If he has examples where the procedures are not working, I shall be interested to hear them. We must remember that the procedures are merely one aspect of the whole of the law of diligence and that many other aspects are involved. If there are any specific matters of procedure which can be improved in that way, I am prepared to look at them.

Economy (Prospects)

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper on the general prospects for the Scottish economy for the next year.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): The Scottish Economic Bulletin published by my Department provides a review of the economic situation in Scotland, and its next issue is due in the near future.

Mr. Smith: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for him to issue a full statement on Government policy to deal with the deep crisis in which we find ourselves? Is he aware of the falling and desperate level of investment in manufacturing industry in Scotland and of the conclusions which have been reached by bodies such as the National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review that his changes in development policy are causing some of the fall in investment in manufacturing industry? Would it not be a great fillip to the Scottish economy and to those who propose to invest in it if the Government would set a target and set out their plan in black and white in a White Paper and thereby help to generate confidence?

Mr. Campbell: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the effect of our


measures. He suggested a White Paper. However, the 1966 White Paper on the Scottish Economy, published by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), was an unfortunate example and a warning to all concerned because its forecasts proved to be wrong within a matter of months.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a White Paper might help to reduce the serious concern at present about the prospects of the Scottish steel industry? Will he again confirm that he will use his influence to further the proposed major development of steel in the West of Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, Yes. The answer to the first part is that I have seen reports in the Scottish Press about what appear to be internal matters within the B.S.C.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he said about the White Paper published in 1966 is absolute nonsense and is in any case quite unrelated to this question? While he is doing nothing, institutions such as the British Steel Corporation are making plans which are creating considerable alarm in Scotland about future prospects. Would he do something about this?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, and I am.

Unemployment

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new proposals he has received from outside organisations on ways of reducing unemployment, in particular following the Scottish Trades Union Congress-sponsored Assembly in Edinburgh on 14th February.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement arising out of the conclusions conveyed to him by the Scottish Assembly organised by the Scottish Trade Union Congress on 14th February.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on matters for which he is responsible arising from the Scottish Assembly held in Edinburgh on 14th February.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have as yet received no communication arising from the deliberations of the Scottish Trades Union Congress's Assembly on Unemployment, but an observer attended on behalf of the Department of Employment, and of the Scottish Office.

Mr. Hamilton: Meanwhile, what have been the representations which the right hon. Gentleman just said he had made to the British Steel Corporation, particularly only in view of the estimate in this morning's papers that 18,000 jobs are to be lost in the Scottish steel industry between now and 1975? What representations did he make to the British Steel Corporation before that leak was allowed to get into the Press? What progress has been made in the devolution of Government offices to Scotland and other development areas?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member refers to a report—I have seen several reports—in the Press today, concerning some document, apparently an internal document of the British Steel Corporation, which, according to the reports, was written in 1968. I know nothing of that document and cannot comment upon it. The question of the best Government machinery for regional development measures is continually under review, and changes will be made if they are thought to be more effective than the present.

Mr. Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that he has had no representations from the S.T.U.C. in relation to what happened on 14th February in Edinburgh reflects the feeling in Scotland that it is no good appealing to this Government because they are insensitive to the economic and employment needs of Scotland? Will he not realise that this reflects a very serious situation indeed and that, instead of standing back and talking about internal documents, he should get involved in the situation and try to do something for a change to solve the unemployment problem in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I fear that the hon. Member is entirely wrong. It was arranged before the conference that a Government observer should be there and I informed the Secretary-General that I was exceedingly interested in what happened at the conference. He knew that I was getting a report and I understand that he has made an approach to


the Prime Minister as the head of the whole Government.

Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that the document mentioned is a confidential document of the previous Government and that any questions about it should be referred to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend must be referring to this document of the B.S.C. which is reported in the Press. As it is apparently dated 1968, the last Government should know more about it than we do.

Mr. David Steel: Presumably the Secretary of State is aware that the S.T.U.C. Assembly was a remarkably successful occasion in the views put forward. Would he say something about the statements which have been appearing in the Press over the last few days about the forthcoming creation of Government office jobs in Scotland and their dispersal in different parts of Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: On the last point, the hon. Member knows, I think, that a study is being made of the whole question of dispersal of offices on a major scale. He also knows that the Forestry Commission is coming to Edinburgh and that I was a member of the Government concerned with the successful move of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow. This is something about which I am very much concerned. I agree that the reports that I have received show that the S.T.U.C. Assembly was successful—particularly because of the contributions made by some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many organisations he has met in the last six months concerning unemployment.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have met nine organisations and my hon. Friend has had eight similar meetings in the last six months.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that after the figures are produced tomorrow other representations will be made to him? Is he aware, for instance, that the construction industry is working at only two-thirds capacity? Does not he consider that trying to meet our need for houses and hospitals could become a valuable source

of employment? Some Lanarkshire hon. Members have received representations about rumours of proposed steel industry closures. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will try to find out from the British Steel Corporation whether those rumours are true? The matter is causing a great deal of consternation not only in Lanarkshire but throughout Scotland.

Mr. Campbell: I am always ready to see deputations and delegations whenever I can about unemployment, which is of great concern to me and many others. Things are looking better in the construction industry in Scotland, particularly because of the large increase in housing approvals and starts in the public sector and increased activity in the private sector, which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I have already dealt with the British Steel Corporation in answer to previous Questions.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentle man tell us the organisations he has refused to see, apart from Kilmarnock Town Council? Does his last statement mean that we shall see a drop in the unemployment figures for Scotland tomorrow?

Mr. Campbell: Tomorrow's figures will come out tomorrow. The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is, "Very few".

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received in the past month on Scottish unemployment; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: In the past month I have received two letters solely concerned with unemployment in Scotland, while several other letters have referred to it. Where appropriate my replies have referred to the major measures being taken, including the special public works programmes, a summary of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sillars: In answer to an earlier Question on Scottish unemployment, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that tomorrow's unemployment figures will come out tomorrow. Will it be a better tomorrow?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows that he must wait for those figures.

Following is the information:

Recent Special Measures
Additional public works programme in Scotland (£65 million).
Special assistance for environmental improvement in West Central Scotland (£17 million).
Increased capital allocation for derelict land clearance.
Increase in the rate of grant for house improvement.
Acceleration of naval shipbuilding orders placed in Scotland (£55 million).
Acceleration of aircraft procurement in Scotland.
Acceleration of capital expenditure programme of nationalised industries.

Other Measures Taken
Designation of West Central Scotland as a special development area.
Designation of Edinburgh as an intermediate area.
Introduction of free depreciation for plant and machinery for both manufacturing and service industry.
Increased rates of building grant and improved loan terms under Local Employment Acts.
Extension for indefinite period of 40 per cent initial tax allowance for new industrial building.
Reductions in Corporation Tax.
Reductions in Bank Rate.
Relaxation of bank credit restrictions.
Reduction of income tax.
Reduction of S.E.T.
Removal of hire-purchase restrictions.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the meeting between his Department and Scottish local authorities regarding the exploitation of North Sea oil.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): On 14th February I had a meeting with the planning and development authorities principally affected with the aim of identifying and promoting measures to bring the maximum of benefits to Scotland from North Sea oil developments. It was agreed to constitute the meeting as a standing conference which will meet again later this year,

under my chairmanship. To back up the standing conference, my right hon. Friend's Department are providing a permanent point of contact to which all concerned with the development of North Sea oil can refer for information or advice.

Mr. Douglas: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a very interesting answer? I am grateful that he is at last taking some initiative to ensure that Scotland gets the maximum possible benefit from North Sea oil. Did this meeting take place without any discussion document prepared by the Department being submitted? Is it the Government's intention to prepare some discussion document, for this House in particular, so that we may know the Government's views on exploiting this very important natural resource?

Mr. Younger: There was not a discussion document for this meeting. The main information at the meeting was a fascinatingly interesting description of the possibilities for exploiting North Sea oil given by the representatives of four major oil companies. All the delegates who took part in the conference found that what they said was most interesting, useful and revealing.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Would my hon. Friend confirm that the oil companies are generally very pleased with the reaction and the help that they have received from the local authorities in the area, and that N.E.S.D.A. in particular has been earning golden opinions, on which I congratulate it? As the present development appears to be very piecemeal, has my hon. Friend formed any view about whether it is wholly desirable to let it continue in that fashion?

Mr. Younger: I warmly support what my hon. Friend said about N.E.S.D.A., whose rôle in this has been of tremendous help to all concerned. As for the exploitation side, it is significant that, even before a single barrel of oil has been brought ashore commercially from any of these finds, already over 1,000 people in Aberdeen have jobs through the exploitation of this resource. The oil companies all say that their experience is that the people of the North East are extremely good and very quick to respond to their needs.

Mr. Grimond: Did the Government promise finance to the local and public authorities for works in connection with this oil? If so, is this to be extra finance, covering such things as housing, as well as harbour and connected works? What will the rate be? Will it be a 100 per cent. grant? If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer these questions now, since they are very important for the public authorities doing the planning, would he say when the financial proposals might be available to the House?

Mr. Younger: What I said to the conference was that the Government recognised that there may well be change in priority in the provision of infrastructure to respond to the needs for North Sea oil. I assured them that the Government knew this and were reappraising the priorities to make sure that they accord with the needs.

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on his proposals for ensuring that the exploitation of North Sea oil makes the maximum contribution to the Scottish economy.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what survey he has made of the logistics required for further exploration and exploitation of the oil fields in the North Sea; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The international oil industry is finding that it will have to apply its most advanced technology to tap this oil because of the difficult conditions, including depths of water. My aim is that as much of the work as possible on platforms, rigs, equipment, services and other related activity should be in Scotland. Already important installations and sites in Scotland are being planned and progress is fast, although the oil is unlikely to start flowing for at least two years.

Mr. Strang: Do the Government intend to publish a coherent and flexible plan for the exploitation of North Sea oil? In the meantime, would the Secretary of State investigate the possibility of moving the headquarters of the petroleum division of the Department of Trade and Industry to Edinburgh, as such a move would not only provide 90

useful jobs but would also have an important beneficial effect on the oil industry in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: Only one major company has announced its plans for the first phase. The companies themselves are still at the exploration stages, and most of them have not yet been able to put forward plans, so the Government are not yet in a position to come in and co-ordinate. On the question of removing the headquarters of the D.T.I. petroleum division, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take note of that suggestion.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that communications will be absolutely essential for the rapid development of the oil industry in the North-East? What particular consideration is he giving to a motorway, which will be necessary not only to Aberdeen but to the north of Aberdeen as well?

Mr. Campbell: All infrastructure, which includes roads, is being considered, with the developing North-East oil industry being fully taken into account.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the fact that Aberdeen is an eminently suitable place to which to transfer the petroleum division of the D.T.I., instead of many other places? On infrastructure, would the right hon. Gentleman indicate when Aberdeen Harbour Board is likely to get authority to proceed to improve and develop port facilities?

Mr. Campbell: A number of very suitable places along the east coast commend themselves for headquarters of different kinds. I am glad to note that some of the leading companies have made their headquarters in Dundee and Aberdeen, among other places. On the point of the hon. Gentleman's question about infrastructure, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, and I shall ensure that he is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Sir G. Nabarro: May I, as a Sassenach, ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he realises that this major discovery of oil under the North


Sea, not far off the coast of Scotland is the greatest bit of luck that Scotland has had this century? Having regard to the outcome of the miners' strike and the urgent need for alternative sources of indigenous fuel on a big scale, the utmost expedition is urged upon him by all Sassenachs to ensure development as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Campbell: Recognising my hon. Friend as a Sassenach who has a great interest in Scotland, I assure him that we regard this not only as a piece of great good fortune for Scotland but also as opening opportunities which we in Scotland must grasp.

Mr. W. Baxter: While we are all most anxious to do what the right hon. Gentleman has indicated and to see the exploitation of this oil, what measures have been taken to safeguard the interests of the fishing industry if, perchance, there should be bursts or breakages in the oil pipes and a great deal of contamination of the sea?

Mr. Campbell: I am glad to say that the companies with whom I have been in touch so far are formulating plans and taking immense trouble to avoid leakages of oil. The fishing industry has expressed some apprehensions, but, being somewhat familiar with both industries, I see no reason why, if they keep in close touch with each other, their operations cannot carry on without interference.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of helping Scottish industries would be for the oil that comes ashore in Scotland to be made available to Scottish industries at a cheaper rate than elsewhere?

Mr. Campbell: That is a very interesting suggestion, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of it. As for refining the oil, B.P. has already undertaken an expansion of its refinery at Grangemouth.

Mr. Ross: While we are glad to see that infrastructure needs are being met, will the Secretary of State assure us that they are being met by additional grants rather than by changes in the priorities, as may have been understood by what was said earlier by the Under-Secretary, that additional monies are to be made

available in advance and that direct benefits will be taken up later? Has the right hon. Gentleman had any meetings with the Minister more directly responsible for this matter, and the Treasury, to ensure that direct financial benefit will flow into Scotland as a result?

Mr. Campbell: It is certainly the Government's intention, and that of Ministers concerned, that there should be Government assistance at the early stages when it is most required. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I am attending, on Friday, a conference at Aviemore on the whole question of the North Sea oil industry.

School Meals

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children were taking school meals on the last date for which figures are available; and what was the figure 12 months earlier.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The figures are, 350,399 in September, 1971, and 374,995 a year earlier.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a shocking state of affairs? Is he aware that, in some borderline cases, children who are not entitled to free meals are at the same time being denied free milk? Would he not agree that the Government have a case to answer and that they are doing a tremendous damage to the children of this country?

Mr. Monro: No, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. The drop has been only 4 per cent. over the 12 months I mentioned. With the greatly improved arrangements, the increase in free meals has been very substantial.

Mr. Rankin: Could the hon. Gentleman translate that 4 per cent. into numbers, which are very important?

Mr. Monro: I gave the numbers in my original answer.

Teachers (Pensions)

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of teachers at present in service who will be denied full pension because of the fact that their university course


was interrupted by war service during 1939–45.

Mr. Monro: No records are kept on which to base such an estimate.

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman must know that the numbers are very small indeed. Does he not realise that most of these teachers have given loyal service to the Scottish education system? In the present review of the Scottish teachers' superannuation scheme, will he guarantee to look at the problem and to clear up this anomalous situation once and for all?

Mr. Monro: I certainly join the hon. Member in paying tribute to all Service men and women who served their country in the last war. Under the Superannuation Act, 1939, their pension rights were fully safeguarded. I agree that the working party should look at this, and I understand that it is doing so.

Value-Added Tax

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the possible effect of value-added tax on agricultural production in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Scottish Landowners' Federation has represented that food, food prcducts and agricultural rents should be zero-rated rather than exempted.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that since very large increases in the basic price of food are bound to take place as a result of our joining the Common Market, the incidence of V.A.T. should be kept to the minimum in those cases which affect agriculture—such as repairs, renewals, leases and sales?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Chancellor announced in his Budget speech last year that food, except perhaps those items which are subject to purchase tax, would be relieved of V.A.T. The Chancellor will shortly be making a statement about this.

Mr. Douglas: In the particular circumstances prevailing, would not the Minister press for a zero rate?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Urban Environment

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from local authorities, as a result of his scheme, announced on 7th February to improve the urban environment.

Mr. Younger: Local authorities received details of this scheme from the Scottish Development Department only some two weeks ago, and it is as yet a little early for them to have completed individual submissions.

Mr. Dalyell: What time scale does the Department have in mind?

Mr. Younger: I hope that within the next week or two the schemes will begin coming in from local authorities. As for completion of the work, we are very anxious that it is completed by the middle of 1973.

House Building

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is able to estimate the effect of present winter conditions on the Scottish house-building programme in 1972; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: Weather conditions so far this winter have generally allowed good progress to be made.

Mr. Sillars: As the Minister has just demonstrated that he has a capability for assessing climatic effects on the Scottish house-building programme, is not he even more able to assess the effect of Government policies on Scottish house building? Would he come clean on a long-standing question: will the Tory Government build more or fewer houses than the Labour Government built in Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that I am able to make some calculations about the effects of Government policies on the house-building programme in Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be as delighted as I am to know that, on the latest figures that I have, starts in January, 1972, are about 55 per cent. up on the starts for January, 1971. That is not a bad beginning to the year.

Rents

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local


authorities have acted to raise rents in advance of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill becoming law.

Mr. Younger: This information is not yet available.

Mr. Hughes: When the information does become available, the Under-Secretary will find the expected result, that very few local authorities in Scotland have applied the provisions of the Bill in advance. Does this not show that the Bill is extremely unwelcome in Scotland? Will he, therefore, withdraw it as from now?

Mr. Younger: There has been no question of applying the provisions of the Bill in advance. What we have done is to undertake, in the course of the introduction of the Act, that local authorities who increase their rents in the interim will get credit for having done so when we introduce the Act. But there is no question of anticipating the will of Parliament in introducing the Act.

Licensing Laws

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland from what organisations he has had representations regarding Scottish licensing laws and their harmonisation with the opening hours in the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Clayson Committee on the licensing laws has received evidence from one or two bodies suggesting that licensing arrangements on the Continent are relevant to the Committee's examination of permitted hours. Two letters from private individuals have suggested harmonisation.

Mr. Small: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Would he take note that in spite of the rave reviews we have been getting from the Government benches because rationalisation of hours is now on the agenda, on the evidence before the Clayson Committee, he should reject the claim by the E.I.S. that we can go in for a family boutique style of drinking in Scotland? Would he resist these blandishments and pay attention to the recommendations of the Scottish Health Education Department that the effects of social drinking are a menace in Scotland? I hope that the

hon. Gentleman will not pay too much attention to the trade in considering an extension of hours.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These are matters for the Clayson Committee and I have no doubt it will take into account what the hon. Member said. I certainly note that he does not want a Café Continental in Scotstoun.

Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries

Mr. Ian Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his intention to introduce legislation based on the recommendations in the White Paper, Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. But I have nothing to add at this stage to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), on 1st December, 1971.—[Vol. 827, c. 434–5.]

Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister appreciate that fishing is the greatest participation sport in Scotland?

Sir G. Nabarro: I thought it was drinking.

Mr. Campbell: I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Mr. Small) said just now about drinking. I hope that when the Minister considers legislation he will bear in mind the effect this may have on the rod fisherman in Scotland who is very worried about some of the recommendations in the White Paper.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Both sports involve liquid. I can certainly assure the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) that one of the purposes of the White Paper is to make more fishing available to anglers in Scotland and it is very encouraging so far, in the consultations we have had with the angling interests in Scotland, that, apart from certain specific criticism, there has been a general welcome for what is proposed.

Mr. Galbraith: Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary make sure that adequate time is granted to the various interests before legislation is prepared?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have already had consultations with most of the representatives of the fishing industry and angling interests who are affected. We hope to complete these consultations fairly soon and will take fully into account everything that is said.

Mr. Dalyell: In the meantime, what is the Government's thinking on the stocking of poor waters?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This matter is covered in the report. Giving more protection is one of the matters on which legislation will be needed. This is one of the most important ways of making more fishing available for anglers in Scotland.

Homicide (Penalties)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the committee investigating penalties for homicide; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Emslie Committee is expected to report before the end of this year.

Mr. Taylor: The question has been given renewed urgency as murder convictions in 1971 appear to be an all-time high. Will this report be published?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This question is always urgent, although very often I think we would do well to attract even more attention to the problems of crimes of violence generally rather than specifically to those of murder. Certainly, I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about publication because obviously this is the kind of report which will be made public.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Under-Secretary undertake not to rush into a decision about this matter and bear in mind that he will receive the support of many responsible hon. Members on this side of the House in resisting attempts by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) to make cheap political capital out of a serious matter?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is unfair to say that my hon. Friend is trying to make cheap political capital. He is showing genuine concern about a topic which wor

ries many responsible members of the public and he is right to bring it before the House. But I agree that we cannot act until we know what is in the report and we shall consider it soberly and fully when the time comes.

Hospital Consultants (Merit Awards)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount paid out in merit awards to hospital consultants in Scotland in 1971; how much was the maximum award; and how many consultants received this amount.

Mr. Monro: Specific information is not yet available, but it is estimated that about £1,320,000 will be paid out in merit awards to hospital consultants in Scotland in the financial year 1971–72. Sixteen consultants received the maximum award of £6,840.

Mr. Gourlay: That is an estimated increase of £109,000 over the £1,211,000 that was paid out in 1970. Is the Minister aware of the great dissatisfaction among many consultants at the arbitrary method of disbursing this huge sum of pin money to the blue-eyed boys in the Scottish teaching hospitals? Will he do something to remove the cloak of secrecy which surrounds the payment of about £6,500 in awards to 16 consultants in Scotland? Will he consider giving the money either to the nurses or to satisfying the urgent needs of hospitals in Scotland?

Mr. Monro: That was a whole series of supplementaries from the hon. Gentleman. The awards are distributed on recommendation of an advisory committee of very distinguished consultants, and this followed the recommendations of the Spens Committee and the Royal Commission many years ago. The reason for not making the information public was set out in the Royal Commission's Report and was unanimously supported then.

National Health Service (Reorganisation)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the employment prospects of National Health Service employees following reorganisation of the service.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Many comments on our White Paper (Cmnd. 4734) were to the effect that the employment prospects and other legitimate interests of National Health Service staff should be safeguarded following reorganisation. The Government fully share this view and the Bill at present being considered in another place contains provisions designed to safeguard these interests.

Health Centres

Sir F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of health centres there will be in Scotland in 1980.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: About 200.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health centres are likely to be completed in 1972 in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Twelve.

Mr. Brewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that figure. How much extra finance will be made available in the next year from the emergency works programme for this desirable social objective?

Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for his percipience and I am glad to say that we have been able to make additional finance of about £400,000 available for health centres through the additional public works programme in the period up to 31st March, 1973.

Mr. Carmichael: Is the Secretary of State sure that all the planning difficulties, quite apart from the financial difficulties, the arrangements with the doctors and social workers who will be using the health centres and so on have all been smoothed out? What response has he had from the dental profession about their taking up places in the health centres? I believe that as yet none is operating within a health centre.

Mr. Campbell: I am glad to say that in places where conditions are suitable the different medical services are coming together to make this service work. The dentists do not seem to find this so effective from their point of view. I am glad to have been present at the opening recently of two of these centres and to

have seen how they are welcomed by the professions and the people they serve.

Caravan Sites Act, 1968

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to extend the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, to include Scotland.

Mr. Younger: I have no evidence that this is necessary: if the hon. Gentleman has such evidence I should be grateful if he would send it to me.

Mr. Doig: Is the Minister aware that hundreds, if not thousands of families have their homes now on wheels, living on caravan sites? These people are entitled to the same protection and security of tenure as people who live in permanent houses.

Mr. Younger: I am aware that many people live on caravan sites, regarding them as more or less permanent homes, at least for long periods. But we have received no evidence that there is any widespread problem of harassment or any signs of other problems in caravan sites in Scotland. In 1968 when the English Act was passed, local authority associations were consulted in Scotland and, except for the District Councils Association, they saw no need for legislation.

Environmental Improvement (Minor Projects)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the type of minor projects of environmental improvement he has in mind on which local authorities might spend the additional £1 million on work to be completed by the end of June, 1973; and what estimate he has made of the additional jobs which such work might provide.

Mr. Younger: Examples are clearing up slum and empty sites, disused allotments, rivers and canals, cleaning and painting buildings, and planting trees.
I cannot at this very early stage forecast how much employment will be created, but my right hon. Friend has asked local authorities to concentrate on projects which can provide additional jobs.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is just fiddling with


what is a major scandal in Scotland? We shall see the extent of the unemployment in the figures which will come out tomorrow. Will the Under-Secretary consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT such responses as he has had to date indicating how seriously they take this suggestion?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is only a tiny part of the massive aid this Government have put in to help to alleviate unemployment. The total figure amounts to about £60 million or £70 million, and I can assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State will be watching very carefully to make sure that local authorities make the maximum use of this additional money.

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer not make rather silly the arbitrary reduction the Minister made in the rate support grant? For those two years, he took away £3½million and he is now giving back £1 million.

Mr. Younger: The matter must be seen in the general context of the massive amounts of money made available. They are greater than was requested by any of the many bodies which have asked my right hon. Friend to help.

Mr. MacArthur: Will my hon. Friend also put in the OFFICIAL REPORT the long list of the massive help which has been given to restore growth to the Scottish economy, and will he do so in particular to assist the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) in this welcome broadening of his interests?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend's last suggestion is a very desirable aim. The information will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT today.

Electricity Boards (Investment Programmes)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the investment programmes for the Scottish Electricity Boards, in the light of the Government initiatives to accelerate spending in the public sector.

Mr. Younger: Investment by both Boards has been accelerated to provide more employment. For 1972–73 the approved programmes amount to £67·4

million for the South Board and £39 million for the North Board; and for 1973–74 the provisionally approved figures are £51·1 million and £42·5 million respectively.

Mr. Douglas: I am grateful for the figures and note the general trend. Can the Minister assure us that the supply of electricity will be in harmony with the demand for it, in view of the industrial expansion we need? Can he give us a specific answer—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) has a Question down about this—on the possibilities of accelerating the expansion of the nuclear power station at Stake Ness?

Mr. Younger: The joint generating studies of the two Scottish Boards take into account all the expected needs of the Scottish economy. I am confident that it will be possible to meet them, within these investment programmes. The new station in the North of Scotland cannot be brought forward any further until a definite decision is made on what type of station is most suitable. The Government are pressing on as quickly as they can with this most important and difficult study.

Sir J. Gilmour: Bearing in mind the large increase in coal-fired power stations arranged by the last Conservative Government, what review is my hon. Friend now carrying out, in view of the settlement of the miners' strike, on the use of coal for generating electricity?

Mr. Younger: The question of the type of fuel best suited to maintain a balance in our power supplies in Scotland is one we keep under review the whole time. We shall continue the review in the general interests of seeing that there is a proper balance of the fuel supplies suitable to electricity boards and to the public. The supply situation looks a little more optimistic now. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is shortly to make a statement giving the latest position.

Hunterston

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the global sum necessary for the provision of the iron ore terminal at Hunterston, in Ayrshire.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is a matter for the British Steel Corporation, which has announced the cost as £26 million.

Mr. Lambie: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that if the Hunterston ore terminal is to go ahead the money must be supplied by the Government, directly or indirectly, to the British Steel Corporation and the Clyde Port Authority. Will he be honest with the House and give us an assurance today that the Government will provide the necessary finance for the terminal to give the necessary boost to the Scottish economy?

Mr. Campbell: I have given the hon. Gentleman the estimate for which he asked. The project formed part of the British Steel Corporation's capital investment programme, for which the Government make loans available in the normal way. The Clyde Port Authority has not so far made an application to the Department of the Environment for approval for loan assistance for its share of the project.

Sir F. Maclean: Can my right hon. Friend say what will be the extent of the terminal and the connected installations? Will he see that everything possible is done to preserve the amenities of the area?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot in a short reply tell my hon. Friend the extent of the new installation, but I can assure him that it is my intention, as the Minister responsible for the environment in Scotland, to do all I can to protect the environment, while encouraging desirable industrial development.

Cattle Hides

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of cattle hides is represented by those with open warble holes which have been presented for processing in Scotland in each of the months from April to July in the last five years.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Warble infestation is not a notifiable disease. I understand however that in the last five years the percentage of hides with open warble holes has ranged from 0·63 per cent. in 1968 to 2·48 per cent. in 1971.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does not my hon. Friend agree, in the light of scientific knowledge which is available to control the warble fly, that it is very disappointing that the hide industry is being penalised because the farmers are not actively employed in killing the warbles when they should do so?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As long as it is the farmers and not the Government who are being castigated for not killing the warble! My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the matter, because it is very much to the farmers' own financial advantage to take the precautions where they are needed. I congratulate him on raising the question in this way in the House today.

Nurses

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from hospital boards and other organisations regarding the shortage of trained nurses.

Mr. Monro: None, Sir.

Mr. Ewing: That answer indicates as do all the answers today, that no one writes to the Scottish Department about anything now. Does he recognise that the shortage of trained nurses is a serious problem in Scotland? An 8 per cent. pay increase was announced yesterday, the terms of which I have not had time to study because of our sitting in Committee until six o'clock this morning on the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that the 8 per cent. will not be taken from the nurses in the form of increased charges for hostel accommodation and so on?

Mr. Monro: The shortage the hon. Gentleman talks about is not a fact. There may, exceptionally, be a shortage in certain hospitals, but we are still going through the transitional period for the new working week. In many hospitals additional staff have been engaged and other arrangements have been made to introduce the shorter working week. There may remain some hospitals where there is a shortage, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to realise that there has been a very significant increase in the total nursing staff in the past two years, from 40,106 in 1969 to 44,622 now.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Can the Minister answer my hon. Friend's second point? Will he assure the House that the increase will not mean that nurses will have much more taken from them for board and lodging and so on?

Mr. Monro: Like the hon. Gentleman, I was in the Committee until six o'clock, and I have not had time to study the details of the pay agreement, but I will look into the matter.

Secondary Schools (Part-time Education)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in eliminating part-time education in Scottish secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monro: In the last week of January there was part-time education in one school only where the number of pupils who lost two or more hours of instruction was 87. This figure is to be compared with 4,256 in January, 1971.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is splendid news, observing that part-time education has been the scourge of Scottish education for many years? Will this splendid situation be maintained?

Mr. Monro: Yes, this situation will be maintained. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the part which he played in laying the plan.

South-East Regional Hospital Board

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much additional expenditure, capital and current, he intends to authorise for the South-East Regional Hospital Board, for the financial year 1972–73; and whether this will take into account an accelerated provision of additional geriatric and psycho-geriatric beds in Fife.

Mr. Monro: In terms of the White Paper on Public Expenditure, Cmnd. 4829 of November, 1971, my right hon. Friend expects to make an additional £11 million at 1971 prices available to the National Health Service in Scotland compared with 1971–72, but I cannot give

particulars of the allocations which he intends to authorise for each regional hospital board until the 1972–73 estimates are approved by Parliament.
Although each board is responsible for determining its priorities, I have made known to them the importance which I attach to the improvement of hospital facilities for the old and mentally disordered.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that in Fife there are only 10 such beds per 1,000 of the population over the age of 65 compared with 15 beds per 1,000 in other areas of Scotland? Therefore can he say that the building of the geriatric hospitals in Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes will be brought forward to the 1972–73 period?

Mr. Monro: I cannot give any assurance for the 1972–73 period, but I will bear in mind the points which the hon. Gentleman made. I appreciate, too, that in his area of Fife, at Kirkcaldy, provision is required.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Manpower

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister for the Civil Service by how many persons the strength of the Civil Service diminished from 1st July, 1970, to 31st December, 1971.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): As I told my hon. Friend on 1st December we have made reductions in staff but these have been counterbalanced by increases required mainly to meet growth in population, more widespread social benefit payments, higher requirements for prison personnel and arrears of work in the Inland Revenue.

Sir G. Nabarro: Has my hon. Friend perceived that I have frequently had occasion to rebuke him for his lethargy and indifference in honouring election pledges, which were twofold: first, to indulge in open government, whereas all bureaucrats are introverted; and, secondly, to reduce the size and scope of the bureaucracy, whereas my hon. Friend continuously encourages the expansion of the bureaucracy? Is there any danger that we shall see some results shortly?

Mr. Howell: I certainly perceive my hon. Friend's constant interest in this question. If there are certain areas where he believes there should be fewer staff, and if he is against the increases which I have mentioned, I am sure that his views on particular activities which could be cut will be very welcome indeed, and he should put them forward.

Mr. Kelley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether possible entry into Europe has in any way inhibited the retention of staff who will be required to meet the consequences of such entry, and whether a proper estimate has been made of the staff required to introduce the value-added tax?

Mr. Howell: That is rather a different question, but if I get the hon. Gentleman's meaning aright the answer is that it has not inhibited it.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: While appreciating that the numbers have fallen and the welcome reasons in certain sections for that, may I ask my hon. Friend to publish a list of the Departments in which the numbers have fallen since 1st July, 1970?

Mr. Howell: It has already been published.

Salaries (Increase)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what consultations prompted his recommendation that salaries of certain civil servants should be increased by 7½ per cent. as announced in February, 1972.

Mr. David Howell: The Central Pay Increase for certain civil servants announced on 3rd February, 1972, was a settlement arrived at after negotiations conducted within the normal Whitley Council framework.

Sir G. Nabarro: While I am always the first to admit that competent and proficient people should be adequately and suitably rewarded, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that 7½ per cent. compound interest per annum is a deliberate provocation to miners, to railwaymen, to engineers and to other large bodies of organised workers to seek at least commensurate advances and that all this is highly damaging to the community?

Mr. Howell: I am glad that my hon. Friend is at least prepared to recognise the excellent worth of the work done by our public servants.

Sir G. Nabarro: Very few.

Mr. Howell: The increase is very much in line with current and recent settlements. Indeed, the only exception is the highly exceptional increase for the miners.

Mr. John D. Grant: Will the Minister not pay too much attention to his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and recognise that he is something of a special case?

Mr. William Hamilton: A court case.

Mr. Grant: I do not approach this in a roundabout fashion. Will the Parliamentary Secretary further recognise that the need for this rise is very much underlined by the quite large numbers of civil servants who are at present having to apply for family income supplement?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is not easy to ignore. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) that this increase was arrived at in negotiations in the normal framework. It fairly reflects the situation and is not out of line with recent settlements outside the Civil Service.

Computer Information (Code of Conduct)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what code of conduct governs those civil servants with access to, or involved in, computer projects in Government Departments.

Mr. David Howell: Civil servants concerned with computer projects are subject to the same general rules about conduct as those laid down for other civil servants. In addition, there are stringent statutory provisions protecting particular classes of information; for example, under the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. The detailed application of these rules is the responsibility of individual Departments.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that none of those rules and regulations to which he has referred applies specifically to computerised installations? Is he also aware that the


Prime Minister has been sitting on that Front Bench for the past year telling me that there is nothing to worry about concerning the confidentiality of Government information? Bearing in mind the large numbers of Government Departments which are now bringing computers into use, is it not about time that we had a code of conduct specifically covering this kind of installation?

Mr. Howell: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this issue. He may like to know that the survey on the use of Government computers to record personal details is very near completion and that the Government will then consider whether further action should be taken to safeguard personal details. In this consideration we shall take account of the recommendations to be made by the Younger Committee on Privacy.

Mr. English: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, however, that after 1st January, 1973, his remarks may not be valid at all? The only secrets protected by the European Communities Bill are those relating to atomic energy. Yet the Bill provides that all information in the possession of the Government can be given to institutions of the Community and contains no provision for protecting anything other than that which I have mentioned.

Mr. Howell: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertions on that matter. This is obviously a much wider question. If he wants to ask me about it and puts down a Question, I will do my best to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL CASES (RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Lord Advocate if, in view of the fact that failure to record proceedings when hearing criminal cases in court may prejudice the effectiveness of an appeal, he will take steps to have such evidence recorded.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): Proceedings in all cases tried on indictment are already recorded. It would not be practicable to record pro

ceedings in cases tried summarily: in these cases appeal is normally by way of stated case. The Thomson Committee is considering criminal procedure generally, including the present appeal provisions.

Mr. Dempsey: Does the Lord Advocate agree that in certain cases where appeals are heard one is relying on memory or notes in order to proceed with the deliberations? In such cases, is it not only fair that, to ensure a true and accurate report, all proceedings should be recorded? Otherwise, there must be instances in which appeals will be prejudiced.

The Lord Advocate: It would not be practicable to record all cases. Summary cases are not recorded, and the Grant Committee, which considered the matter, took the view that no substantial injustice could be sustained as a result of this situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL LITIGATION

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord Advocate from what sources outside his office advice is regularly available to him in dealing with complex cases of medical litigation.

The Lord Advocate: I am not clear as to what the hon. Member means by this. In the discharge of my duties as a Law Officer and as Public Prosecutor in Scotland I have available to me advice on medical matters from any source I care to approach including the medical profession itself, the medical departments of the universities and the medical advisers of the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Scottish Office concur in the advice being given to the Secretary of State for Social Services—that there is no need to change the law relating to kidney transplants and the availability of kidneys for recipients?

The Lord Advocate: That is a matter which should go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It does not fall within my departmental responsibility.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
When the Army was sent to Northern Ireland in support of the civil power in 1969 it was assumed that it would operate under the powers conferred on it by regulations made under the Northern Ireland Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act. This assumption was challenged in a habeas corpus application last summer in our own High Court when the view held by the Government as to the validity of these powers was upheld by Mr. Justice Ackner.
This morning the Northern Ireland High Court has delivered a judgment which declared, in effect, that these regulations are ultra vires insofar as they confer powers on members of the Armed Forces.
The particular regulation challenged in the case before the Northern Ireland High Court is one which empowers a commissioned officer to call on an assembly of persons to disperse. But it appears that the court's judgment would equally affect other regulations, including, for example, the power to stop and search people and vehicles suspected of carrying firearms or explosives.
It is clearly a matter of great urgency to ensure that the Army has all the powers it needs and which succeeding Governments have recognised to be necessary in order to deal with the terrorist campaign. It is also necessary to ensure that members of the Armed Forces would not be liable to any legal proceedings based on this technical point in respect of the exercise of these powers since 1969. There is a right of appeal from the judgment of the Northern Ireland High Court to the House of Lords but it would inevitably take some time before such an appeal could be heard. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will therefore later today introduce a short Bill which the House will be invited to proceed to consider through all its stages forthwith. The sole effect of the Bill will be to declare that the law so far as the powers of the Armed Forces are concerned is and always has been what it has hitherto been believed to be.
Prints of the Bill cannot, obviously, in the circumstances be available before the Bill is introduced, but copies of the draft Bill will shortly be available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The House will recognise the situation in which the Government have been put by this ruling of the Divisional Court in Belfast this morning, which is as much of a surprise to my right hon. Friends, not least my right hon. and learned Friend, as to right hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. The Prime Minister, if he will allow me to say this, was good enough to alert me two days ago to the possibility that there might be this judgment and informed me of the state of contingency planning.
Both Governments—I emphasise, both Governments—which have been responsible for the use of British troops to preserve peace in Northern Ireland had assumed on the best legal advice available, to us and to the recent Government, that our action in putting troops in and with the powers which they were given—for example, to deal with search of vehicles suspected of carrying gelignite or action to deal with snipers—was legal. This was the view of the then Government—and of the present Government—when we put in the troops in 1969, and, indeed, when we gave them supreme control of security in Northern Ireland. The view of both Governments seemed to have been confirmed by the decision of the British High Court in the judgment of Mr. Justice Ackner last September.
I recognise that this is difficult for the Government in the sense that if action is not taken immediately it could be alleged that British troops called in to deal with a particular security situation this evening would be acting illegally in so far as the judgment of the Divisional Court is the last word on the subject at the present time. There could even be people who would use the action of the Divisional Court to incite people to an orgy of violence in the hope that the troops would tonight be inhibited in dealing with it or, if they did, they could say that the troops could be charged with acting illegally pending appeal or pending action taken by this House.
In these circumstances it would be intolerable if there could be any doubts


about the ability of our troops to deal with the situation, particularly after that evil crime yesterday which the whole House condemns, and with its effects on totally innocent people—even more innocent than the troops, in the sense that the troops act on Government orders. It would be intolerable if, for example, tonight our troops were not able to search vehicles which might be carrying gelignite or might be on similar senseless or violent operations.
Equally, the Government will recognise the position in which the House is put by the Bill. I am sure they do. To ask the House at any time to take in one day all the stages of a Bill affecting civil rights is a very, very big thing to ask of the House. I do not underrate the Government's acceptance of that fact. Equally, to ask that any Bill which contains retrospective powers, even if it were going through by the normal processes, should be taken in one day, is a great deal to ask of this House. So far as I am concerned, I would like a little time to study the terms of the Bill, which, I think, is not yet available to the House, though as an act of courtesy—I hope I may mention this—I have been supplied with a copy, and I am taking the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend on this.
The Government will recognise that a Bill of this kind could lead to a very wide debate. It would be in the minds of many of my hon. Friends—indeed, perhaps, in the minds of myself and others on the Front Bench—that it is very difficult to give assent to the Bill without raising the wider issue of the transfer of security from Stormont to this House. Amendments to that effect might be precluded by the terms of the Bill, its Short Title, and the rest of it. I do not want to argue about this, though I think that if we were able to debate the Bill in the normal circumstances with all the facilities for debate this is a matter which many of my hon. Friends would want to raise, and some, indeed, might want to move Amendments. I believe the urgency of the situation is such that, though we have not yet had the Government statement—although it has already been on the B.B.C., which I somewhat regret—if we are to take the Bill tonight I would give my reasons for thinking that

the Government have a right to ask for it tonight but I would hope that it would be on three understandings.
First, we must study the terms of the Bill. It cannot be rushed through in this way without proper study. I think, secondly, that there should be a debate to include the rights of hon. Members to raise some of the broader aspects under which our troops are operating. This may seem an odd legislative proposal to make, but I would ask that time should be provided for that after the Bill has gone through if it is to go through so quickly. The Government ought to provide time to debate issues arising out of the Bill as well as any Government announcement or initiative about what should take place in Northern Ireland thereafter, not least because the Government are taking private Members' time from the defence debate as a result of the introduction of the Bill. Therefore, I hope the Government will agree that we shall have an agreement through the usual channels for extra time to debate the Northern Ireland situation in the light of this unfortunate incident, which is not the fault of either Government, and to validate a position which we all understood to be the law.
Thirdly, if the Bill goes through we are conferring retrospective powers to validate the position of both Governments, to validate what we all understood to be the law and what, with all respect, should have been the law if it was not. I am certain that this Government and the previous Government would, if they had found that they were putting troops in this position have taken speedy action to change the law when there was time.
Since we are having to act retrospectively to re-create a situation which we all thought existed, and since the powers which are now in question have been used in the controversial context of internment, I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Government not only that the charges against Mr. John Hume will be dropped—I think that they are probably quashed by the decision—but that no new charges will be preferred against anyone in respect of the situation which obtained before today. In other words, if there is to be retrospective validation there must be retrospective immunity in respect of other cases which


would have been quashed by the Belfast court if we had not introduced this Bill today.

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has approached this problem, which presents, as he rightly said, difficulties to both sides of the House in that the situation which we thought to be the case has been held by the court not to be the case in law, although on appeal to the House of Lords the decision might be the same as that of Mr. Justice Ackner. The case of Mr. Hume is quashed, and that is the end of it.
On the question of discussion in the House, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be making a short Business Statement to deal with the matters to be discussed.
On the broad issue which is often raised, whether the powers of law and order should be transferred from Stormont to Westminster, this is a wider issue which should be discussed in a wider context. It will not be prejudiced in any way by the Bill. What would be prejudiced by the absence of the Bill is the authority of our own Army to deal with the bombers.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with two points. He has given his statement of the legal position of Mr. Hume, although we are all in some doubt now what is the legal position of anyone. Will he give an assurance, in so far as he can bind the Stormont Government—and if not, undertake to consult them—that there will be no more prosecutions under the law which the House is being asked to reconstitute today, under which law, I understand, Mr. Hume would have been found guilty?
Secondly, I do not find the right hon. Gentleman's answer about the debate, particularly in relation to the transfer of security, 100 per cent. satisfactory. He said that the Bill would not prejudice our debate. In the ordinary course of events if there was not this acute timetable, which I accept, the House would be debating this issue tonight, and the proceedings on the Bill will take quite a long time because of that. Will the Home Secretary ensure that time is provided afterwards, ahead of our normal rights? If he will give that assurance, the usual channels can discuss the time

table, so that the broader aspects of the Bill can be considered at a later stage if we do our best to get the Bill through on the narrow point that is raised by the decision of the Belfast court.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he wants on the second point. His first point is a legal matter, and I ask him to await the Attorney-General's speech this evening, when he will deal with it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, despite the serious constitutional points that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the majority of hon. Members will think that the gravity of the situation is such that the Government are quite right to ask the House to take this legislative action? Indeed, not to have done so would have been a dereliction of duty, since it would be intolerable to add to the almost impossible burden on British troops in Northern Ireland the additional burden of possible illegality.

Mr. Maudling: I think that is so.

Mr, Thorpe: The Home Secretary may be aware that the Leader of the House was courteous enough to tell me of the intentions of the Government, and, therefore, I, too, have given the matter some consideration. May I ask him four questions, which he may prefer to ask the Attorney-General to answer?
First, for the record, is the right hon. Gentleman not wrong in saying that the decision of the court indicates that the regulations are ultra vires? They are not ultra vires; it is merely that the court has suggested that those powers do not extend to protection for the Armed Forces, and they are, therefore, not as extensive as was thought. I think the Home Secretary will agree that we should get the record right.
Second, does the Home Secretary agree that the basis of the judgment is that, unless it be reversed, the powers under which our Forces were sent to Northern Ireland and subsequently maintained there have been defective for giving them adequate protection? Therefore, what we are doing in effect is to protect individual members of the Forces.
Third, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the Downing Street Declaration


in which the General Officer Commanding was given control of the deployment and tasks of the R.U.C. and command and control of the Ulster Special Constabulary? It could be that both those bodies have been operating under orders which are themselves illegal on the basis of this judgment and, therefore, that the Act of indemnity might have to be wider than is at present envisaged.
Fourth, if the Special Powers Act has been introduced by virtue of the Prerogative as opposed to the normal legislative process in Stormont, a certificate under Section 11 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, may be sufficient to give protection to our Armed Forces.
Finally, whilst I accept the point made by the Leader of the Opposition that it may not be appropriate for a general debate to take place, will the Home Secretary accept that many hon. Members take the view that this emphasises the point that security in all its aspects should be the total responsibility of the Westminster Parliament?

Mr. Maudling: The answer to the fourth question I must leave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. On the first point, what I said in my statement was:
…these regulations are ultra vires in so far as they confer powers on members of the Armed Forces.
I think that answers the point. The answer to the second point is "Yes", and to the third point "No".

Mr. Orme: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement that the charges against Mr. John Hume are to be dropped. I assume that that also goes for Ivan Cooper and other defendants. They are not terrorists but elected representatives of the Catholic community who were taking part in a civil demonstration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Illegal."]—which was not connected in any way with violence or with the I.R.A.
I understand the difficulties which the Home Secretary faces, but he has to measure the effect that the Bill will have on the Catholic community who, having been urged to use legal means, find, when they have won a case in the courts, that we then change the law. There may be justification for the case that the Home

Secretary has made, but I ask him not to underestimate the effect that this legislation might have on the Catholic community.
This is not a party political point, but I ask the Home Secretary to take very seriously what was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the Liberal Party on the transfer of security. If security in all its aspects were to be transferred fully to the control of Britain, this would reassure the Catholic community.

Mr. Maudling: On the first point, I understand that the case against all involved has been quashed, and, its having been quashed by the court, that is the end of the matter. On the second point, I know that there are considerable feelings one way or the other regarding the transfer of responsibility for law and order. This is a very big issue, indeed, which must, and can, be discussed only in the broad context of a total settlement for Northern Ireland. All I was saying earlier was that by passing the Bill tonight we shall not prejudice the argument on that matter one way or the other.

Mr. Deedes: I fully accept the urgency of this matter but, following the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask what are the chances of the Government making available to the House by seven o'clock this evening not only a transcript of this short Bill but at least a summary of the judgment which has led to this situation so that hon. Members may at least have some awareness of what precisely is at issue?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that the judgment runs to some 30 pages, and, since it was delivered only this morning, it is not physically possible to produce a summary in such a short time. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to indicate in his speech tonight the main basis of the judgment. The effect of the judgment is clear, and what we have to deal with in this House is the effect of that judgment on the ability of the Armed Forces to deal with the terrorist campaign.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary accept that many hon. Members who are deeply critical of the Government's


policy in Northern Ireland nevertheless regard it as essential that any ambiguity about the troops' rôle in Northern Ireland should be removed and will regard it as their duty to support the Bill this evening? Notwithstanding that, may I make two points for the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and the time when the Bill is introduced? First, could he go a little further on the retrospective powers in the Bill and the retrospective intentions of the Government under any power which the Bill may confer? Secondly, could he make clear that many of the tasks carried out by the troops, despite this surprising ambiguity, remain their right according to the common law under which we believed we were sending troops to Northern Ireland in the first place?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks. On his second point, the troops still have their common law powers, but these are very limited—for example, in regard to carrying out searches for gelignite in motorcars and that sort of thing. The purpose of the Bill is to declare that the law is what the House has always believed it to be and what the High Court in England believes it to be. That is what the Bill will declare—no more and no less than that. It will at the same time provide protection for members of the Armed Forces, which since 1969 have been operating under proper instructions in the belief of this Government and the previous Government that this was the law.

Mr. Tapsell: Although I am sure the whole House appreciated what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in his opening remarks—and I do not wish to misrepresent him—there were certain remarks which he made at the end about immunity which were unclear to me. May we have an assurance that there is no question of our granting immunity to people who have committed illegal acts, or terrorism, before today?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that was the point at all. The point here involves the protection of members of the Armed Forces in carrying out their duties as properly ordered in the general belief of this Government and the previous Government that this was the lawful situation.

Mr. Paget: The Government have been surprised by the ambiguity of the law in the interpretation of the courts. Will they bear in mind that when a great part of our law comes to be interpreted by an alien court used to a different form of legislation, the position in which the Government find themselves today will be very common in future? Would they consider introducing some general provision to deal with the mess in which they find themselves?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. and learned Gentleman is drawing me into rather wider matters.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend make clear that this proposed legislation in no way increases either the powers or the immunities of our troops in Northern Ireland? This will give some reassurance, lest this be misinterpreted in the Press.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir; I certainly give a categorical assurance on that.

Mr. McNamara: We all appreciate the need for this legislation, but will the Home Secretary bear in mind that much of the effort that went into this litigation in the Irish courts was aimed at the whole principle of the Special Powers Act and the various powers exercised by virtue of it, powers which many people both in this country and in Northern Ireland find reprehensible? Will he also give an undertaking that any persons who might be guilty of an offence, or who might be charged with an offence, of a similar nature to that with which Mr. Hume was charged—for example, people who assembled at Newry and at Enniskillen, and various other persons involved in assemblies of that nature—will also have their cases quashed because under the law as it stands, until we pass the Bill and until the House of Lords decides this matter, they will be entitled to an acquittal?

Mr. Maudling: What the Bill will do—and my right hon. and learned Friend will be dealing with the legal points later—is to declare that the law is, and always has been, what Parliament intended it to be.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the helpful attitude adopted by the Leader of the Opposition on this matter, could


not a message go out from this House to Her Majesty's troops in Northern Ireland telling them that this House is united in ensuring that the troops act in complete conformity with the law and that they have the House behind them in all they do?

Mr. Maudling: That would be very fair and right.

Mr. Sheldon: But this House must always be very jealous of its rights when the Home Secretary comes here at 3.30 in the afternoon with new legislation which the House is asked to pass in one day. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position of those hon. Members, particularly those in Northern Ireland, who may not be here this afternoon and may have an undoubted interest in this Bill? What arrangements have been made to notify them of this impending legislation? [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. This issue does not appear on the Order Paper, and many hon. Members will have looked at that document to see the agenda for today's business. Surely a matter which does not appear on the Order Paper as a subject for debate should be given special treatment to enable hon. Members to be informed, by whatever means available, of any change of business. What efforts has the Home Secretary made to this end?

Mr. Maudling: The judgment was delivered only this morning, and I have made a statement to this House at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell), who genuinely and sincerely misunderstood what I said, could I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to come back to the point of immunity? I was not referring to immunity in respect of crimes of murder and arrest, but I was pressing the right hon. Gentleman—and he said that the Attorney-General would deal with this matter tonight—to deal with the position of those against whom proceedings could be taken, as they were taken against Mr. Hume; and, of course, Mr. Hume's case has been quashed by this ruling. I refer to those who would not be proceeded against in Northern Ireland as a result of the ruling

of the Divisional Court but who again might be the subject of new proceedings once we have made the matter legal. May we have an assurance—I do not ask for it now since it can be dealt with by the Attorney-General this evening—that there will be no new proceeding as a result of the validation by this House, if we so decide to validate, of the position of the troops and of the kind of alleged offence which Mr. Hume was supposed to have committed?
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, who quoted the Downing Street Declaration? This again is a matter which we should like the Attorney-General to answer tonight. Is it not a fact that, although the Royal Ulster Constabulary was acting de facto as part of the Armed Forces, it was acting finally under the orders of the Ministry of Home Security and to that extent any action taken by it is not in question? Could the House be advised on that?
Thirdly, with regard to the point made by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), surely it is not beyond the capability of the services available to this House or to the Government to obtain photostat copies of a 36-page document before the debate begins at seven o'clock.

Mr. Thorpe: Of course they can do it.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure this is possible, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party and I will place our photostating capacity at the availability of the Government so that this can be done. It is surely relevant when dealing with a Bill of this kind for the House to know the exact terms of the judgment rather than to have to rely on the inevitably simplified version which we have seen on the tape.
Fourthly, since the right hon. Gentleman has justified, and I think the Leader of the House will justify, the decision to try to get the Bill through the House this evening, may I have confirmation from the Government in so far as they have any authority in this matter that arrangements are, so far as they understand, being made in another place so that if this House passes the legislation we may assume that another place will be available and able to deal with it? We are being asked to confirm the legality


under which our troops are operating, and we should not like to see all our efforts and sacrifices frustrated by the fact that the troops might still be left in an equivocal position.

Mr. Maudling: The Attorney-General tells me that he will take note of the first two points and deal with them both in the discussions this evening. We shall do our level best to get as much of the transcript of the judgment as possible made available by seven o'clock tonight, but the message is still coming through and the Telex is still at work on it. The position over another place has been very much in our minds, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to deal with that.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Neither my hon. Friends who who are Ulster Unionists nor I have been able to catch your eye during these exchanges—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member, I think, will have many opportunities later in the day.

Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to the absence of Ulster Unionists. If I am not allowed to ask a question, many of my constituents will wonder why I did not intervene.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): It may be for the convenience of the House if I briefly explain revised arrangements for business. I start by making my apologies to the House for the exceptionally short notice, and responding to the point that this House is properly jealous of any such move ever being taken. It is being taken, as the Leader of the Opposition said, only in response to very exceptional circumstances. I fully accept that.
It is proposed that the defence debate should be adjourned at seven o'clock to allow my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to seek leave to

bring in the Northern Ireland Bill, which the House will then be invited to approve. I should perhaps confirm to the Leader of the Opposition that similar arrangements are being made in another place, if this House approves the Bill, for it also to be passed through that House as urgently as possible.
I also confirm what the Home Secretary said, that of course I am prepared to have discussions through the usual channels to decide when it might be suitable to have a wider debate on th subjects concerned.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the Leader of the House for the spirit in which he has made his statement. It is a matter on which the House is extremely jealous. As we would expect, he is extremely sensitive to what the House would feel about this matter.
I think that all the points which I should want to make have been made in my exchanges with the Home Secretary, although some of my hon. Friends, not to mention Ulster Unionist Members, will undoubtedly have points of their own which they may wish to make later. However, if the constituents of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) did not know that he was here, they will "ken the noo".

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Leader of the House aware that we are fully satisfied that he is apprised that the House would like to have the transcript as soon as possible? That indication being given, I think the House would leave it to him. May I ask what his intentions are if the Bill is given a Second Reading and a Third Reading and goes to another place? Is it the intention that this House should be in suspended animation until the Bill comes back from another place? What is the procedural arrangement that he has in mind for that contingency?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we shall do our very best about the summary. I shall certainly do everything in my power. I cannot pretend to be an expert at photostatting and I do not know how long it takes or what can be done, but everything that can be done will be done.
On the second point, there are some orders on the Order Paper which could


be taken after this Bill. That should suffice to meet the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend consider a suspension for an hour tomorrow night to allow for a full debate on defence, because there is a tendency for defence debates to be concentrated on Ulster and the wider issues tend to be obscured?

Mr. Whitelaw: This is a matter which can be discussed through the usual channels. If throughout the House there is a widespread desire for such a course, of course I shall consider it.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: With reference to the transcript of the proceedings in Belfast, would it not be adequate if several copies were made available in the Library for hon. Members to see them there?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am no expert in these matters, but I will do my best to make the best possible arrangements.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 10th MARCH

Members successful in the Ballot were:
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Ridsdale.
Mr. Peter Archer.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to the report of what I think is a vicious untruth, which I submit is a contempt of this House and should be considered by the Committee of Privileges. The report is in today's issue of The Guardian newspaper and it is headed,
Wilson Blames Tory 'Rowdies' ".
There are three sections which I should like you to consider. The report says:
Mr. Wilson last night denounced the Conservative Party for bringing about a deterioration in standards of civilised behaviour, both in Parliament and in society at large.
In a speech to the trade union group of Labour M.P.s at the Commons he declared that if 'organised disruptions' continued from the Conservative benches 'our parliamentary system could become unworkable.' 

Later the report said:
As for recent scenes in Parliament, their origin could be traced directly to the behaviour of Conservative back benchers aided and abetted by their front bench in the last Parliament.
The final extract to which I draw your attention is:
'Today, Labour spokesmen cannot get up without organised operations to impugn their personal sincerity…
In support of this submission, I would merely refresh your mind that on 20th January the House was suspended during Prime Minister's Questions after physical movements, which were looked upon as minor assault, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), neither of whom is a Conservative Member. On 31st January we had the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) physically assaulting the Home Secretary. She is not a Conservative Member. As recently as 18th February we had the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) making what we now accept as a generous apology for a physical movement against the Leader of the Liberal Party. He is not a Conservative Member.
In terms of the general effect of rowdyism in the House, I think that I am justified in reminding you that on two occasions during the wind-up speeches of Government spokesmen in recent important debates, I have had to seek your protection in order to ensure silence for those speeches.
I submit shortly that whoever is responsible for this report clearly recognises the growing revulsion of the public at these recent happenings and is trying to present perverted reports which give a wrong impression. If it is the newspaper whose wrong reporting is responsible, I believe that that newspaper is in contempt and should be brought before the Committee of Privileges. If the Leader of the Opposition made these remarks, I believe that he has out-bid Dr. Goebbels in perverting the truth, in which case the right hon. Gentleman should be brought before the Committee of Privileges—

Mr. Harold Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have taken advice on this matter, and we must proceed in accordance with the rules of the


House. I understand that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is referring to a report which appeared in a newspaper. Will the hon. Gentleman bring the newspaper to the Table?
I am also told that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) is not allowed to intervene today and that, in accordance with precedent, I must say that I shall consider the matter and rule upon it. In accordance with my Ruling, then there will be an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If a right hon. or hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order, the House must allow him to be heard.

Mr. Harold Wilson: My point of order in no way concerns the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) or your Ruling thereon—[Interruption]—though right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be proving my point. When you have ruled, will it be in order for me then to raise points of order about some of the inaccurate quotations which the hon. Member for Peterborough has made?

Mr. Speaker: Even the right hon. Member for Huyton must wait for the eventuality. I will rule, and then I will consider what is and what is not in order.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you rule, will you take into account the full report referred to by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) including the paragraph immediately following, which the hon. Gentleman omitted to quote? It says:
Nothing had been more disgraceful in recent days than the behaviour of the P.M. himself who, after making unjustified reflections on the Leader of the Liberal Party was forced into a grudging but unpublished apology'.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair takes into account all the surrounding circumstances before it rules.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a slightly different point of order arising out of the submission made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). In the course of making his submission on privilege, the hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) in a way which compared him with the late Dr. Goebbels. Surely that is a very improper accusation to make against any hon. Member of this House and should be withdrawn before the matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the Chair can intervene on what is, I think, a matter of taste, not of order.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. In view of the fact that recently you drew to my attention, quite rightly, that it was quite wrong for hon. Members to interject from a seated position, would you consider advising the whole House that it is quite wrong for any hon. Member, including any right hon. or hon. Member opposite, to interject from a seated position?

Mr. Speaker: I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I remind the hon. Gentleman and all other right hon. and hon. Members that example is better than precept.

BILL PRESENTED

MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING

Mr. Ray Mawby, supported by Mr. McCann, Mr. Drayson, Mr. Ben Ford, Mr. Bray, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Dan Jones, and Mr. Roger White, presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of the practice of multilevel marketing and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28th April and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the greater freedom of public service broadcasting; and for purposes connected therewith.
At present, all broadcasting is just that, and until the spoken and televised word are as freely available as the printed word some element of public service will remain.
I seek to provide for greater freedom within the existing framework and to modify that framework in such a manner as to pave the way to the ultimate freedom for broadcasting which the Press in Britain now enjoys.
When the printing press was invented, the church was against it because it helped to disseminate knowledge and spread education beyond the closely guarded confines of church and court life. There are still some clergy today who are against local radio, though their reasons remain obscure. Radio has been a means of mass communication for half a century, yet it retains many of the shackles that it acquired at the outset due to public and parliamentary fear that it would be misused. I suspect that some of the heirs and successors of those timid and suspicious churchmen of centuries ago sit in this House, and I have noted the suspicion or caution with which some hon. Members approach any proposal for the extension of mass communications. They are not confined to one side of the House.
That is why with the arrival of television, which is the ultimate in powerful and intrusive means of reaching every household, it was regarded as being too dangerous to be let out of the hands of those to whom radio was entrusted 50 years ago. Later we created the I.T.A. and the companies which work within its framework, in the affairs of one of the smallest of which I have some experience and interest. It is not they who are under attack today, but the massive and in some ways rather splendid bureacracy that, alas, the B.B.C. has become.
I recognise that the B.B.C. produces a vast quantity of first-rate material, and long may that continue, but the B.B.C.

problem undoubtedly exists and must be tackled. One reads in this morning's newspapers of a massive shake-up in its current affairs department. Resignations are talked of. There is a report of a savage attack by a union on administrative waste at the top. There is a report of a settlement of a libel case involving the B.B.C., and the number of public apologies made by the corporation for its actions have increased greatly in the last 18 months. It has set up a special complaints committee, but with a fanfare of publicity and somewhat narrow terms of reference.
It is against this background of the B.B.C. problem and the need to reorganise independent television long before 1976, when the new pattern of contracts and, one hopes, two channels instead of one will emerge. It is time to set up a small group to report within a year on the future of broadcasting as a whole.
My Bill provides for a review of broadcasting by a group of not more than seven nor fewer than three persons, at least one of whom shall be a woman and one of whom shall be under the age of 45, appointed by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, subject to the affirmative Resolution of this House so that the House will have absolute control of its composition. My Bill defines its terms of reference. It would seek to modify the existing framework in such a way as to give a greater number of separate originators of programmes greater freedom to express divergent views, and, broadly, to place broadcasting on the same footing as the national and local Press. The I.T.A. would be known as the Television Authority, with two channels served by separate competing companies preserving regional character, with ample opportunity for clash of view. Indeed, by extending the opportunities for coverage of controversy of a national or local character, public participation would be vastly increased.
The television authority would continue to exert an influence over the programme companies. The companies would continue to be financed by advertising. The same disciplines over them would apply via the authority as applies at present. I would not preclude in my Bill the possibility of a company which did not comply with the reasonable wishes of the authority finding itself fined for its


malpractices, which has not been happening recently but could, I believe, happen if the House would give my Bill the force of law in due course.
In the case of the B.B.C., to some people even to suggest change is like advocating the demolition of West-minister Abbey. I am asking my review body to consider the possibility of a broadcasting corporation receiving licence fees as at present but augmented by clean sponsorship; that is, not allowing any sponsor to make a personal appearance or to advertise but merely to have the name of an organisation prepared to sponsor a programme attached to it, and only after the programme has been produced, so that there could be no collusion between the sponsor and the programme producers. The corporation would have responsibility for transmission, as the B.B.C. does now, but Channel 1 and Channel 2 Televison, should replace B.B.C.1 and B.B.C.2 and they should be completely separate, each with its own policy and views on current affairs and matters of that kind. They could be relied upon then to produce a different but nevertheless balanced clash of views.
I believe that the present situation gives the B.B.C. far too great an exclusive artistic patronage but that with two channels one could get divergence of view and much wider scope for artistic patronage. So many other benefits flow from having two quite separate channels that I need not detail them here.
Lastly, I come to the question of overseas services, which would be replaced by a new corporation, Radio-Television Great Britain, which would broadcast into Europe and into the world at large with material drawn from all available sources—B.C.1, B.C.2, T.A.1 and T.A.2; and similarly with radio. I believe that in this way Britain's voice abroad would be far more representative than it is at present. It is within this framework, and with the knowledge that many more channels of communications will shortly be possible by means of cable to every household, that the review should be conducted. There could be 60 channels via cable to each household, revolutionising the means of communication and taking some of the burden off the far-stretched postal services.
I do not believe that a better future for broadcasting lies in councils, committees or commissions to control and confine the talents of those who work in radio or television. We talk a good deal in this House of the right of freedom of speech. This Bill is designed to help us find a way to confer that freedom upon those who broadcast, in the belief that freedom of speech and clash of view is where the real safeguard of the truth lies.
Finally, my Bill is a kind of back bencher's Green Paper, a basis for discussion. I do not imagine for a moment that the House will be unanimous about all its details, but the central theme, about which we must all agree, is that freedom of speech and communication is the greatest possible safeguard of the truth.

Mr. Michael English: We must congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) on this interesting exercise, in disagreement with his own Front Bench. It is quite obvious that he does not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must indicate at once his intention to oppose the Bill.

Mr. English: I do indeed, Mr. Speaker, but I feel nevertheless that you will realise that my congratulations to the hon. Member were somewhat ironic since it is perfectly clear that he is opposing the views of his own Front Bench and his own Minister, who is sitting on that bench, in relation to this. He knows perfectly well what the Government's proposal is. He knows that the Government's proposal, which is broadly shared by many hon. Members of this House is that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and all the programme companies should in due course be reviewed at a time prior to the lapse of the B.B.C.'s Charter, and similarly appropriate documents relating to Independent Television.
What the hon. Member appears to be trying to set up is one of his own. There is, of course, some support for a review. I would probably wish a review of all the broadcasting services to commence a little earlier than the Minister may, but I certainly never wish to see in the name of independence what the hon. Member puts forward, a suggestion that all public service broadcasting in this country


should be partly supported by advertising revenue, not merely advertising revenue in the sense in which the independent television companies now are supported but actually by what he called "clean" sponsorship but which actually would still be sponsorship. He means sponsorship with all the attendant difficulties and troubles that have been known in the past in the United States of America. He does not realise that in the U.S., where I admit they have what I suppose he would call "dirty" sponsorship, they have gone in for public financing of broadcasting simply because of the experiences they have had.
I would suggest, therefore, that the hon. Member is quietly and peacefully advocating, as he is fully entitled to do, something that is opposed by an overwhelming majority of hon. Members of this House and an overwhelming majority of the public outside. I say this advisedly as one who has never been opposed, as hon. Members of this House will know, to independent television; nor am I personally opposed to local commercial radio, for example. I am a believer in a mixed system; but if we are to have such a system the public service element in that system must be a clean public service element, not a public service element with an admixture of advertising. Otherwise, all those things which my hon. Friends fear in relation to advertising broadcasting and commercial broadcasting will be true.
Everywhere upon those media the influence of the person who is financing them, the influence of the advertiser, will be felt everywhere, as distinct from in certain places. I have no objection, personally, to the influence of the advertiser being felt, but it should not be felt everywhere. I do not think that on every possible occasion every single human being in the United Kingdom should be subject to the pressures of advertising whether he wishes it or not. At present people can change channels. If they do not like advertising they do not have to look at it. If they do, they need only look at the other channel.
The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that everywhere there should be advertising. He said an admixture of clean sponsorship should be considered. I do not believe that a majority of people in this country wish that to be so.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Sir John Rodgers, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Julian Critchley and Mr. Wyn Roberts.

PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTING

Bill to provide for the greater freedom of public service broadcasting; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

DEFENCE

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Statement on Defence, 1972, contained in Command Paper No. 4891.

Mr. Speaker: I have noted the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and some of his hon. Friends, to leave out from "House to the end of the Question and to add
'condemns Her Majesty's Government's failure to restrain arms spending; and urges it to reduce Great Britain's share of the gross national product devoted to military expenditure from the current 5·7 per cent. towards the 4·2 per cent. average for European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments'
I propose to rule tomorrow on whether or not I have selected it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am grateful for that, Mr. Speaker, and I hope in your consideration you will bear in mind the large number of signatories—117—and that this is no trivial matter; that it concerns this vast expenditure; that in this case, as opposed to previous years, there is no reasoned Amendment from the Opposition, and lastly, that there have been precedents for a backbench Amendment being called. Therefore, we will greatly appreciate your decision tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: I am aware of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. In the special circumstances of today I am disposed to say that I will rule upon the Amendment tomorrow.

Lord Balniel: On taking office the Government reviewed the defence policy they had inherited. We reviewed our commitments both inside and outside Europe. We examined the state of the Armed Forces; their capability, their manning and their equipment. We completed this review in our first months of office.
In last year's defence debate, having established the broad structure of our policies and priorities, I said that, above all, we needed a time for confidence, encouragement and stability. We wish to give the Services time to recover from the succession of traumatic changes that had

been inflicted on them by the previous Administration.
This year's Defence White Paper contains no startling change of policy. It records, none the less, a year of steady consolidation, progress and achievement. It also records substantial advances in conditions of service and manpower strengths. However, we must measure this national progress not only against our past strengths and weaknesses but as part of an Alliance, and we must set it against a changing Soviet military capability. During my remarks I shall refer to some of the problems that still lie before us.
The force improvements announced by the Government in October, 1970, have now all been put into effect. "Ark Royal" finished its work-up in April, 1971, has since covered over 100,000 nautical miles in its current commission and is fully operational.
The Exocet programme is going well. The missile has demonstrated in successive trials its sea skimming ability down to four metres, which is a tremendous advance, and contracts have been placed.

Mr. John Cronin: Has the Minister taken into account the other surface-to-surface missiles, apart from Exocet, because there are more efficient surface-to-surface missiles which could be developed as quickly; for example, the Matra-produced Otomat is superior to Exocet in many respects.

Lord Balniel: We debated this issue at the time of the White Paper and the decision being reached, and the time-scale led conclusively to the need to purchase Exocet, and, as I have said, contracts have been placed.
The Brigade of Gurkhas has been retained, with all its five battalions, and makes a valuable contribution to our force strengths in Hong Kong and Brunei, and we have one battalion with us in the United Kingdom now.
The new TAVR units were established last April. They have already recruited to over 50 per cent. of their strength. The new Armoured Car Regiment has been formed and will have all its armoured vehicles by the middle of next month. This striking achievement in terms of recruiting has been greatly


due to the enthusiasm of the Territorial and Voluntary Reserve Associations. It has also been due to a widespread sense of public spirit and public responsibility and a personal willingness by hundreds of people to give up their spare time in the service of their country.
The aircraft programme has been adjusted to give effect to the decision to increase the number of frontline Jaguar squadrons. To meet the requirement for a new jet trainer, the HS1182 has been selected. These changes have significantly increased the capability of the Services and have been welcomed by our allies.
During the past year manpower also has improved and we have been able to build yet further in increasing our forces. In October, 1970, we halted the planned rundown of the Army and retained a number of representative companies. We did so in the expectation that recruitment, under the impetus of a new confidence, would improve. Hon. Gentlemen opposite scoffed at this arrangement, but our judgment has been fully borne out.
The manpower situation has so improved that on 15th January we were able to ease the pressures on the infantry by restoring four representative companies to full battalion status. The full battalions should be ready for operational duty by midsummer. The restoration of the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders provides a pleasant answer to the charge of the hon. Gentlemen opposite that our proposals were an insult to the Scottish people.
The other two Services have also benefited from the placing of additional defence orders to stimulate employment. My hon. Friend will deal with these in greater detail tomorrow.
In operational terms, this will enable the R.A.F. to form a further squadron of Buccaneers and a further squadron of Nimrods. It will go some way towards diminishing the general shortage of combat aircraft which worried us when we took office; a shortage which has been diminished but which has by no means been eliminated.
New warship construction has been accelerated. The £70 million of new

orders which we announced last November have all been placed—that is, for no less than 14 new ships, including four new type-21 frigates and two type-42 destroyers. This is an unprecedented rate of construction in peacetime.
It will not affect the ultimate planned size and shape of the Fleet, but with the three type-42 destroyers ordered earlier in 1971 it represents a three-fold increase in warship construction on earlier years and it modernises the Fleet more rapidly than we had originally planned.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister said that new warship construction had been accelerated. Does he agree that the rate of nuclear-powered submarine building is exactly the same as it was when we were in office?

Lord Balniel: In broad terms, the rate of nuclear powered submarine construction is the same as it was a year or two ago.
All these changes give a new impetus to the forces, and they reflect our determination to get the maximum value for money. After allowing for a change in the accounting convention following the establishment of the Procurement Executive, the estimates for 1972–73 are equivalent to the target for the defence budget published in the Public Expenditure White Paper last November.
The estimate of £2,854 million represents about 5½ per cent. of the gross national product—the same as we were forecasting a year ago. We believe that this represents a fair balance between the needs of the Forces in meeting the commitments that we place on them, N.A.T.O. and worldwide, and the demands of other civil programmes with their increasing claims on resources if society is to benefit increasingly from improved education, housing, health and other social services.
This compares with the average of 4·2 per cent. of the G.N.P. spent on defence by our European Allies. Our effort therefore remains impressive, but this in no way diminishes the efforts that are being made by our partners in Europe. It is worth remembering, for example, that France spends as much on defence as we do in cash terms and that West Germany spends more, and indeed is increasing its defence expenditure more rapidly than ourselves.
More important, the N.A.T.O. average of 4·2 per cent. of the G.N.P. has now been maintained for two years and has checked the falling trend of earlier years. It is sometimes argued that because we spend a greater proportion of our G.N.P. on defence—although less in actual terms than some of our allies—we can safely relax our efforts. This is the purport of the Amendment which stands in the names of many hon. Gentlemen opposite. I reject in any case the philosophy which says we should do no more than the most laggard. That is not a rôle for Britain which is acceptable to the present Administration. But the argument is superficially fairly plausible. An ever-increasing proportion of the electorate has no memory of the last war. With the years of comparative peace, the efforts to achieve mutual balanced force reductions, the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks, with all this kind of talk of détente, it is easy to forget the dangers. The dangers are unseen, they are many miles away or they are sailing the seas, either under water or out of sight. These kinds of dangers are not part of everyday life; they are extremely difficult for the layman to visualise, and it is understandable human nature to shut one's eyes and wish the unpleasant facts of life away.
But the simple fact is that the Soviet military capability is growing steadily, and it is reasonable to ask why. Over the last five years Soviet defence expenditure has been expanding at about 5 per cent. a year. This is within the country's rate of economic growth and the current five-year plan continues this trend into the future. Its present expenditure is about 8 per cent. of the gross national product. It has achieved now a rough numerical parity in terms of strategic nuclear delivery systems. Of even greater concern to us, though, is the fact that they have been able to build up very powerful conventional forces. We have often in these debates in the past spoken of the dramatic expansion of the Soviet Navy, of its modernisation, its deployment in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean.
I will not go over the same ground again except to give an example closer to our own shores. The Soviet Northern Fleet, which used to be the smallest in their navy, is now the biggest. It is also the closest to our shores. It has 400

vessels, including no less than 160 submarines, at least 65 of which are nuclear-powered. This is a powerful threat against the northern flank of Europe, it is a powerful threat in the Atlantic and it is as powerful a threat to the land mass of Europe itself as the land forces under the Warsaw Pact.
The same picture of development is true of the land forces in Central Europe. In Central Europe, for example, N.A.T.O. is faced with an adversary which has three times as many tanks, three times as much artillery and twice as many—in some rôles four times as many—aircraft. Given the initiative which the Warsaw Pact countries will always have and which enables them to mobilise ahead of N.A.T.O. and concentrate their forces along chosen lines of advance, these figures are a very sobering challenge. And here again there is no sign of any slowing up in the future. Five years ago the Soviet Army had about 140 divisions. Now it has about 165. And it means that they have been able to deploy the increased army strength along the Sino-Soviet border without in any way diminishing their deployment under the Warsaw Pact. We used to be able to say not so many years ago that the numbers were there but the quality was poor. Anyone who said that about the military forces of the Soviet Union today would be living in a world of complete fantasy.
It is the growth of conventional forces which in many ways poses the most serious threat—not only the obvious military threat but a political threat. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks take place against a background of roughly nuclear parity. For that reason any agreements that emerge are likely to be valuable to both sides and are likely to be lasting. But their very chance of success reflects the fact that there is a parity between East and West. It underlines the fact that there is a widening gap between the conventional capabilities of both sides. Here the danger lies, it seems to me, not only in the possibility of swift, overt, military action in the belief that it will not be met by a nuclear response, but in the pressures that can be exerted.
Massive military manoeuvres on borders, continuous and visible naval


presence off the shores—these things can win objectives almost as valuable as any which can be won by direct military aggression. This can induce in people a sense of despair as to what can be done. It may tempt countries to say, "Well, let us relax on defence expenditure; let us channel all our efforts into the social field; let us leave it to others and hope all will be well." It can make neutralism seem a pleasant soft option.
Fortunately, in the last few years the European and American members of the Alliance have shown a greater awareness of the danger. Europe has responded to the challenge, first with the European Defence Improvements Programme and then with the force improvements announced last December. A further billion-dollar increase in defence spending in 1972 over the previous year was announced at the same time.
Our self-help in Europe in 1971 and 1972—and it is a fact not always appreciated that we and our European partners provide some 90 per cent. of the soldiers, 80 per cent. of the naval forces and 75 per cent. of the air forces in the European area—has lent support to the United States Administration in living up to its intention not to reduce its forces in N.A.T.O. I should like to quote something President Nixon said recently:
Today's conditions, not those of 20 years ago, make American strength in Europe absolutely essential. I therefore intend to maintain it.
But it seems to me that they will maintain it only if they can see that Europe is prepared to shoulder an appropriate burden in her own defence.
I have spoken about our national effort, and Europe's effort, to maintain the effective strength of the Alliance in order to ensure that we and our children live in freedom and in peace. It is equally our purpose and our effort to relax tension between East and West. It is obviously right to do what we can to maintain the present balance, but at a lower level than exists at the moment. But nothing would be more foolish, nothing could be more likely to wreck the chances of a mutual balanced force reduction, than for the West to cut back unilaterally. There is not one shred of evidence available to us which leads us to believe that such

unilateral action would be met by reciprocal action by the Warsaw Pact countries.
It must be said that negotiations for force reductions in Europe are likely to prove a much more difficult and complex problem than the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks. They have not yet got under way. There has been no response to N.A.T.O.'s offer to send Signor Brosio on an exploratory mission. We want to strike a fair bargain which does not diminish security on either side. If it can be achieved it may well be enormously worth while in relaxing tension, but we must be under no illusion that what we are concerned with is force withdrawals for a specified area. It will not result in any direct financial savings. It could result in a direct relaxation of tension, and that in itself is a prize worth striving for.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am sure that everybody is in favour of mutual balanced force reductions although the hon. Gentleman does not seem very optimistic about it—in fact, he does not seem to be pressing very hard for it—but the question I want to ask him is this, and I really would like an answer. Why should the British Government devote a higher proportion of its gross national product to defence than any other Western European N.A.T.O. country with the single exception of little Portugal, which is involved in a colonial war in Africa?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Member just left the Chamber, the very second that I began to explain to him why this was a desirable objective. If he would do me the courtesy of reading my remarks, I am sure that he will find a very full and totally convincing explanation.
I turn now to the situation outside Europe. In the Far East, in the IndoPakistan—

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Europe—he has devoted part of his speech to describing his recognition of the new threats to Europe on the northern flank and in the Mediterranean. Can he say, because the White Paper does not make it plain, what redeployment of Britain's contribution to the Allied effort has taken place to take account of these changes?

Lord Balniel: We, of course, as a country, have a part in the strategic reserve. It is we, perhaps more than any other member of alliance, who are capable of deploying to the flanks of N.A.T.O. This is referred to in some detail in the White Paper.
I should now like to turn to the position outside Europe. In the Far East, the Indo Pakistan war, the emergence of the new State of Bangla Desh. China's new emerging rôle, epitomised by President Nixon's presence there today, are all far-reaching changes which have reinforced our belief that it is important for Britain to continue to encourage and support our friends and to assist in maintaining stability in that part of the world.
The Five Power defence arrangements in Malaysia and Singapore have now been finalised. They came into effect on 1st November last year, and the Australian Commander has assumed command of British, New Zealand and Australian contingents. Malaysia and Singapore are building up their own defence forces with considerable energy and efficiency. Our own contribution has given a stimulus to the new defence arrangements to a degree quite disproportionate to the costs of this country, and has been very warmly welcomed by our Commonwealth allies.
In the Gulf, the Union of Arab Emirates has been formed, and our rôle in the area has taken a new form. When we announced our intentions last year, many hon. Members opposite doubted whether we were wise to base our policy in the area on the expectation that the Union of Arab States would be brought about. There have certainly been difficulties, but we were able to welcome the formation of the Union of Arab Emirates last November. Like Bahrein and Qatar they are now independent states with whom we have new treaties of friendship. Recently, Ras Al Khaima became the seventh member of the Union.
The changeover has been achieved with goodwill on both sides. British forces are no longer permanently deployed, but we have not severed our connections with the area. There will be frequent visits by warships, Army units and aircraft. As an example, H.M.S. "Diomede" is arriving in Dubai today, and the Military Advisory Team at Sharjah, about 90 strong, will advise local defence forces on training requirements and will support

British Army units visiting or exercising in the area.
I turn now to Northern Ireland—only briefly, because there have been several debates in recent months, but Northern Ireland is the area in which, of course, the Army is primarily involved at the moment. My hon. Friend, if there is time, will develop the operational situation in Northern Ireland and, as we heard earlier today, there will be a wider debate on the subject before very long. I refer to it mainly to say, as we have so often said in the past, that there can be no purely military solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.
But equally, there can be and there will be no terrorist solution. There can be no victory for senseless brutality and callous disregard for life. It is certainly true that one man with a sniper's rifle or with gelignite can kill or maim for life, that such a man can wreak great damage and that outbreaks of violence will undoubtedly occur until a solution has been found.
It is equally true, that, steadily and inexorably, the pressure on the terrorists will tighten. In their efforts to maintain law and order, the Army will remain completely impartial, concerned only with those who break the law. They will remain impartial and restrained. They will remain courageous. We will not forget that, in the past two and a half years, 58 of their comrades have died in their almost superhuman task of saving Ireland from civil war.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Many of us are extremely concerned about this question of impartiality. How can impartiality be maintained when the Army is acting under instructions of the Stormont Government? As the Minister knows, I witnessed sweeps made by the Army based on information of the R.U.C., during which men were arrested, not at the Army's instigation but at the instigation of the R.U.C., and later released. Whole communities were incensed and the death of one British soldier occurred as a result of this escapade which was at the behest of those people taking their orders from the Northern Ireland Government.

Lord Balniel: I completely repudiate the hon. Member's statement that the Army acts on the orders of the Northern


Ireland Government. The Army acts on the orders of the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, who is answerable to the Secretary of State for Defence and to Ministers of Defence, who in turn are answerable to this House. I must completely reject the implications of the hon. Member's statement.

Mr. Orme: Can I press this point? When I met Brigadier McLennan in Derry and General Tuzo in Belfast, I discussed this very point. There is no doubt that the information about suspects is provided by the R.U.C., that they hand on this information. When I asked whether it was possible to visit Long Kesh Camp, for which the British Army had made the arrests, General Tuzo said, "You must ask the Northern Ireland Government about this; they run Long Kesh." I do not want to quote any officers, because that would be wrong, but I feel that there is some disquiet even among the Army about this point.

Lord Balniel: Of course, information is provided to the Army authorities by the police and by members of the public. The decision as to what action to take in the light of information is a decision for the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, to take.

Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that the G.O.C. is a member of the Joint Security Council, which consists, except for the G.O.C., almost entirely of members of the Stormont Government? Is it not the Joint Security Council which decides all the tactical objectives of the British Army in Ulster and therefore, is not the British Army in Ulster in effect an agent of the Stormont Government?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in that the G.O.C. is a member of the Joint Security Council, but it is his decision as to what tactical or military operations should be undertaken. The Army is not answerable to the Joint Security Council; it is answerable to this House. The point of course is the consultation—

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Lord Balniel: I have given way often enough and since the time for this debate has been very curtailed, I am sure that I would command the general support of the House in proceeding with my speech.

Mr. Morris: This is central to the whole subject of the deep concern about the rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland. Is it not correct that the G.O.C. is a member of the joint committee? Does he not report to it on Thursday of each week? Are not the tactics which he has agreed with the chief constable on the previous day decided in the committee? If there is no point in him reporting to that committee, why does he attend it at all?

Lord Balniel: That is because it seems elementary common sense that there should be consultation between the civil authorities in Northern Ireland, the police and the Armed Forces, which are acting in support of the civil authorities. That is elementary common sense, and these arrangements were made by the previous Administration.
We are discussing a very wide spectrum of defence estimates.

Mr. Simon Mahon: rose—

Lord Balniel: The demands of Northern Ireland on our force levels have had their effect on our normal deployment. At present, five major units from B.A.O.R. are operating in Northern Ireland in the infantry rôle. This has highlighted one of the major problems we found on coming into office. In November, 1970, in the debate on the supplementary White Paper, I referred to manpower as being one of the most difficult problems we had to face. We inherited a very grave manpower situation. But I am glad to say that this is now past and there is no point in going back over the reasons for it.
In 1968–69, the Services could recruit only a bare 28,000 other ranks, and they were critically weakened not only in numbers but by the imbalance in the age structure caused by the lack of recruits. We pledged ourselves to remedy the situation and we have done so. In 1970–71, in our first year of office, the figures rose to 39,000, and in 1971–72 the total should exceed 46,000, the highest figure since 1963.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord Balniel: This is a remarkable achievement by any standards and there is no sign of any falling off.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order.

Lord Balniel: There are several reasons for this dramatic change. The economic situation may have played some part, but not to the extent that one might expect. It is a fact that on the whole—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the noble Lord does not intend to give way. I hope that hon. Members will allow him to continue.

Lord Balniel: It is a fact that—

Mr. Heffer: On this point—

Lord Balniel: —on the whole unemployed people do not usually turn to the Services.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would do best for the moment to remain seated.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The other day I was told off for speaking out from a seated position. I was told that if I wished to intervene I should rise in my place. I am now rising in my place and asking the right hon. Gentleman to give way on a specific point which he made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Walton knows the rules of the House as well as I know them, perhaps better, and it is quite clear that the noble Lord does not intend to give way to him. He is entitled not to give way, and the hon. Gentleman knows that in those circumstances there comes a moment when he must not persist any further.

Lord Balniel: There is an alternative—

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Lord Balniel: I have explained that in my opinion—the hon. Gentleman may take a different view—unemployment is not a major cause for the improvement in recruiting. There are, however, several reasons for the dramatic change, which I shall try to explain. What we have tried to do is to raise the standing of the

Services in public esteem. We have tried to improve the conditions of service—

Mr. Heffer: One small point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Balniel.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let it be clearly understood that I must have obedience to the Chair by everyone in the House, of whatever party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear"]—and I need no cheers from either side for my Rulings. Lord Balniel.

Mr. Heffer: On a small point.

Lord Balniel: We have tried to improve the conditions of service—career, pay and opportunity—so as to offer young men and women a fine and worthwhile life. It has involved substantial changes in the engagement structure. Last year we decided to adopt the Donaldson recommendations for boys. This year we introduce a new scheme which is a revolutionary break with the old traditions of fixed engagements for the Services.
If I were asked to select one reason for the improvement, I suggest that it is the evidence of a profound change in the attitude of the public towards the Armed Forces. In a recent attitude survey, the public were asked to say whether they considered the Armed Forces absolutely essential, fairly essential or not essential. Of those asked, 79 per cent. thought the Forces were absolutely essential this included 59 per cent. of the 16–24 year olds, the main age group from which we recruit. Only 2 per cent. thought that they were not essential. Similarly, 65 per cent. of those questioned thought that the Forces provided the best career possible or a very good career. Above all else, these figures are a tribute to the Forces themselves for their bearing in Northern Ireland.
Looking ahead, however, there is no cause to be over-optimistic. Some of today's problems will loom larger in the years which lie ahead. There will be rather fewer boys in the recruiting age group, and the raising of the school-leaving age to 16 later this year will have a serious effect. Continuous efforts must, therefore, be made to improve and modernise the whole range and conditions of service. The Services were given an


interim 7 per cent. pay award last August and a further review in the normal biennial cycle is at present in hand. A comprehensive review of Service pensions is also in hand and the qualifying age for pension increases will be reduced from 60 to 55 from 1st December next.
Last year we adopted, as I have said, the Donaldson recommendations. This year the White Paper announces a new notice engagement to complement the Donaldson changes. This is directed primarily towards adult recruits, although boys will be able to covert to it at the age of 18. The broad principle behind the new scheme is that a man must complete his training and give 18 months' productive service. He is then free to give 18 months' notice at any time and to leave the Service when he has worked out this period of notice. This is an entirely new concept of engagement for the Armed Forces. Apart from Canada, Britain is unique in having her Armed Forces on a voluntary system. The new proposal is a major step forward in making our engagement structure freer and more relaxed. There is certainly a risk in relying more on the attractions of a Service and less on compulsion. But we live in a free society, and, in so far as possible, our Forces should reflect this society where freedom of choice and not compulsion should be the keynote.

Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman now explain to the House in which areas the main recruitment has taken place? Has it come primarily from areas with high levels of unemployment? Has he any figures on this subject? Is there real freedom of choice for those recruited'?

Lord Balniel: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's point in detail, but the broad picture remains very similar to what it has been for the last decade. The proportions from different parts of the country remain fairly similar. That is a very generalised answer, but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a more detailed Question, I would certainly answer it.
I have spoken over-long. Finally, I come to the decision to scrap H.M.S. "Eagle" after her last commission, because I know the strength of feeling which exists in the House on this subject. I share the regret of hon. Members

about the necessity for this decision. An aircraft carrier, fully worked up, is a major unit which one does not lightly discard. It is also a sad occasion when a ship such as "Eagle" reaches the end of her life, even after serving 20 years with the Fleet. I know that my hon. Friends will deploy their arguments, but they might like to know the arguments we have had to bear in mind.
In deciding whether to run on "Eagle", we have had to look not at the present but many years ahead to assess whether that would be justified in the light of other improvements being made to the Fleet's capabilities. It is a complex judgment involving competing demands of men and money and the credibility of the carrier as a fighting ship in the future.
The decision on "Eagle" is quite a different matter from that in respect of "Ark Royal". She has not received a major refit since her modernisation in the early 1960s. Unlike "Ark Royal" she could not operate Phantoms. But like "Ark Royal", she has a very large ship's company. If we were to run her on much beyond 1972, "Eagle" would have needed another big and costly refit. If we wished her to operate Phantoms—and this would have been the only sensible course of the 1970s—we should have had to adapt her specially during her refit, accepting the increase in cost, which might have amounted in total to £25–30 million. We would also have needed to find aircraft for her. Possibly most important of all, we should have had to lay up other operational units in order to provide manpower for her ship's company. At about 1,400, this is roughly equivalent to the ship's company of five frigates.
Our view was that these sacrifices were too great to accept. Even if we had chosen to accept them, "Eagle" would not have been in service long enough before the new cruisers and other new naval weapon systems were beginning to be deployed in quantity to make the cost of refitting her truly effective. We also looked at the possibility of keeping "Eagle" in reserve after 1972. But this option was open to the same difficulties of manpower, money, and the value we would get from it. If we were to have brought "Eagle" out of reserve


for service in the 1970s, her operational capability would have been no better than it is today. In particular, her Sea Vixens would not have been a proper match for any kind of aircraft they could have expected to confront.
For all these reasons, the Government's conclusion was that the right course was to withdraw "Eagle" from service in 1972, as previously planned.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am listening to my noble Friend's arguments very carefully. But can he assure the House now, at the beginning of the debate, that the Government's mind is not already closed, and that they will listen to the views of the House.

Lord Balniel: I was explaining the arguments that had led the Government to their conclusion. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has said that although he doubts whether a change in the decision will be made, he will consider very carefully the arguments which he feels sure will be deployed during this debate.
I have spoken for over-long in what is a curtailed debate, so I end by saying that the Defence White Paper records progress in policies which I hope command the support of most hon. Members. Clearly, there are some who want more spent on defence and others who want less spent on defence. We cannot please everybody; that is normal in the political world. But the last year has been unique in one respect, in that almost day by day on television we have seen the conduct of our Services on operational duty. Whether or not the House agrees with our political decisions, I believe that almost everyone is indebted to, and very proud of, the conduct of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland and throughout the world.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. George Thomson: I am inclined to begin by echoing the words of the noble Lord at the end of his speech, that in defence debates we cannot please everybody all the time.
As Mr. Speaker referred to an Amendment on the Order Paper, perhaps I should make it absolutely clear that the fact that the Opposition have not tabled an official Amendment to the Motion is

far from meaning that we have no criticism to make of the Government's handling of defence policy, nor that the immense block of public expenditure, rising steeply in relative terms, if not absolute terms, should not be subjected to the most vigorous scrutiny during this debate and the other defence debates on the Estimates that will follow.
To me, the feature of overriding interest in an otherwise dull Defence White Paper is that it reflects in its opening sentences one of the most remarkable conversions in British politics, the conversion of the Conservative Party to the broad policy of its Labour predecessors, policies it had denounced in speech after speech in defence debates when the Labour Government were in office, policies it had described as unpatriotic and reckless and a betrayal of the nation's security. Yet the first paragraph of the White Paper takes pride in a Conservative Government bringing to an end Far East Command on a timetable laid down by the Labour Government. It records as one of their own achievements the withdrawal of British Forces from the Gulf, again keeping to the timetable decided by the Labour Government.
It is interesting to compare the rather bland statement in the White Paper, and the perhaps even blander statement by the noble Lord, with what the Prime Minister said when he visited the Gulf as Leader of the Opposition. The following report appeared in The Times of 31st March, 1969:
Mr. Heath emphasised once again the party's intention of maintaining British Forces in the Persian Gulf area if the Conservatives were returned to power. ' We have quite a different policy toward our friends in the Persian Gulf ', he told reporters at the airport.
The various things the noble Lord mentioned today—our residual presence in the Gulf training missions, occasional naval visits, and so on—all sound very familiar to me. They are part of the policy of the previous Labour Government, which was to be so very different from the policy of the incoming Conservative Government.

Mr. Carol Mather: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman before why it was that the Labour Government, in contradiction of their previous policy, suddenly decided to withdraw from the Gulf, and, the right hon. Gentleman has


never been able to give me an answer. Can he give me an answer now?

Mr. Thomson: I shall come in a moment or two to deal with the general answer to the hon. Gentleman's point. If he feels as strongly as that about the matter, he should be asking those on his own Front Bench why in Government they have turned a complete somersault on the question, when it was open to them to take a different decision.
The White Paper represents the culmination of the process by which the Government have accepted, with essentially minor modifications, the massive and historic change in Britain's defence rôle overseas brought about by their predecessors. If only they had shown the same degree of realism, common sense and continuity in domestic economic policy, and had carried on as much of the Labour Government's domestic economic policy as they have of our defence policy, the country would be a much happier place today.
Nevertheless, the current defence budget, at £2,854 million remains a massive diversion of resources from what could otherwise be constructive purposes in terms of personal living standards or increases in the social services. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) never tires of reminding the House of the number of homes, schools, or hospitals, for example, that could be built with money provided by savings in defence. He is right to ensure that none of us ever forgets that.
Our defence expenditure reflects the world-wide phenomenon that mankind is spending more on the means of self-destruction than ever before. According to the Swedish Institute of Peace Research, in 1969 the human race spent 180 billion dollars on methods of killing each other and only 14 billion dollars on methods of giving mutual aid.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Could not this sorry state of affairs be due to the massive military expenditure of the Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet Union? East Germany and Czechoslovakia, for example, which are very similar to Britain economically, spend 5·8 per cent. and 5·9 per cent. respectively, of their gross national product on defence. The Soviet Union spends

over 8 per cent., and Sweden, which is much vaunted in this context, has a per capita defence expenditure in excess of any of these countries—in fact, in excess of almost any country in the world except Israel. Let us get these things into perspective.

Mr. Thomson: I would not have given way if I had thought the hon. Member was going to make a speech instead of an intervention. I am astonished that he does not recognise, at this early stage in my speech, that I shall come to these important features of the international defence situation in due course. At the moment I want only to express general agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East about the problem of the arms burden on humanity as a whole. Incidentally, one of the most tragic features of the international arms race is that it is often the poorest countries which spend the largest proportion of their G.N.P. The United Arab Republic spends 13 per cent. of its G.N.P. on arms and North Vietnam and South Vietnam spend 21 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively.
A continual high priority for all civilised Governments must be international action to promote disarmament and to ease the arms burden. In central Europe we have one of the greatest concentrations of arms in the world but, fortunately, it is one of the areas in the world where at the moment the best prospects lie for progress in this direction. We are at the beginning of what President Nixon has hopefully called an era of negotiation. This is especially true of East-West relations in Europe. The climate for détente in Europe has been greatly improved, partly by progress in the S.A.L.T. talks between the Soviet Union and the United States and especially by the success of Chancellor Brandt's Ostpolitik. The progress that has been made owes nothing, however, to any contribution that the present British Government have made to détente. Their contribution might more accurately be described as pouring cold water on every hope which is expressed in this direction.
We saw it in the tone of the Defence White Paper. We saw it in the tone of the Secretary of State for Defence in another place yesterday and we saw it again in the tone used by the noble Lord


in the speech he has just made. In our view there can be no doubt that the prospects for exploring mutual and balanced force reductions in central Europe are much more promising today than at any time since the end of the war. Of course, the noble Lord is perfectly right to say that there are formidable technical difficulties, but it is foolish continually to take refuge in these technical difficulties to the point at which the Government are left with no serious hope of making real progress.
It is beyond argument that the level of arms on either side in central Europe now represents a gross over-insurance. I would say, incidentally, to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), who made his defence speech a moment or two ago in the middle of mine, that I think the general balance between the Warsaw Pact forces as a whole and the N.A.T.O. forces as a whole is very greatly exaggerated by the kind of figures he quoted. But I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), if he catches your eye, later in the debate Mr. Speaker, will go into that aspect of it in more detail. It is equally beyond argument—and we ought to recognise it on this side of the House—that this over-insurance is going on at a greater rate on the Soviet side than in the West. There is no denying that the Soviet Union is increasing its arms expenditure while that of the West is either steady or, on the whole, decreasing. It seems probable that this is related not to the N.A.T.O. front as such but more to the Soviet Union's needs for what are, essentially, colonial troops in Eastern Europe and what I can only describe as the obessional preoccupation of the old men in the Kremlin with their Communist rivals in Peking.
The levels of Soviet expenditure are a reason for vigilance but not for dragging our feet in the search for lower force levels in Europe and that is exactly what the Government have been doing on this matter since they came into office. It is known amongst the major members of the alliance that the British Government are the most reluctant, the most sceptical and the most pessimistic in the pursuit of détente. We get it again and again in the speeches from the Government Front Bench. I do not deny the difficulties in

working out force reductions which leave the balance of security unimpaired. That must be an essential test. But the Soviet Union seems even more reluctant to get down to brass tacks about balanced reductions than are the British Government. The Soviet Union prefers the easier political postures of a conference on European security than getting down to hard thinking about realistic disarmament.
Nevertheless, in my view, exactly as it has turned out in the S.A.L.T. talks, I believe getting round a table will immediately begin the useful process of mutual education. The very act of getting round a table and discussing these difficult problems will create a better climate. It will erode distrust and, I believe, as has happened with the S.A.L.T. talks, gradual progress will begin to be made as the political climate improves and there is a greater degree of mutual understanding about the respective positions.
What would upset these possibilities and hinder détente would be a sudden unilateral act of arms reduction. Now, when the prospects of a negotiated détente look better than they have for years, is not the right time for making one-sided concessions. No trade union would approach negotiations and give its cards away in advance in this way. Unilateral cuts are not the way to prepare for multilateral negotiations.
This is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East. I share his goal of reducing the arms burden hut I believe that his method of promoting what would amount to a very substantial unilateral cut in the British arms budget would hinder détente instead of assisting it. A unilateral cut by Britain of the magnitude he proposes—of about £600 million—would have a thoroughly destabilising effect on East-West relations. It would make it impossible for the Americans to postpone unilateral cuts while the disarmament negotiations take place and it would create disarray in the N.A.T.O. Alliance. Such a prospect might initially please the more short-sighted members of the Kremlin. But I suspect that even there the more long-sighted would be deeply worried because the chain reaction of unilateral cuts would force an agonising reappraisal of N.A.T.O. strategy. It would lead inevitably to the lowering of


the nuclear threshold and the demand by the non-nuclear members of N.A.T.O. for nuclear weapons. It would give powerful ammunition to those in Western Germany who have aspirations to nuclear status and whose voices have been silenced by the success of Brandt's Ostpolitik, based, as it has been, on Western solidarity. I ask my hon. Friends to recognise these risks for I know they are as unpalatable to them as they are to me.
It is tempting to make comparisons between percentages of national wealth spent on defence but this has to be done with considerable caution. Percentages spent on defence budgets reflect many variations between nations, variations created by geography or history and sometimes simply by different methods of calculating the defence budget. Luxembourg, for example, spends, I think, 0·9 per cent. of its G.N.P. on arms. I accept that this reflects that it is a tiny country, the size of a British county. Yet that figure spectacularly reduces the average because it is counted in working out the average as if it were equal to Britain or Germany.
Germany spends less than Britain or France because of the historical resistance to its becoming again too militarily powerful, a resistance which is fortunately as strong inside Western Germany is it is in the rest of Europe. We spend more than others, partly because we have a highly-paid professional army where the others have lower-paid conscripts. We contribute more wealth and they contribute more manpower. Some of our allies are finding difficulty in maintaining lower-paid conscripts on the basis of selective service against highly paid industry outside and they are contemplating increasing their expenditure. If their expenditure increased, I wonder whether my hon. Friend would wish to reduce his proposed cuts accordingly. I suspect not, because I understand his perfectly honourable conviction—a conviction in a pacifist tradition which has always been a respected, but minority, view within the Labour Party—that massive unilateral disarmament is safe and wise.
I must tell my hon. Friend, in great friendship, that, if he were a German Socialist Deputy in the Bundestag, I think that he would be arguing not that the

Germans should go up from 3·7 to 4·2 per cent., but that 3·7 per cent. was too high. He would be right from his own point of view. He is primarily interested not in percentages, but in an absolute reduction in the British level of defence expenditure. and percentages form an incidental argument.

Mr. Frank Allaun: My right hon. Friend has made several references to my view. I will not now make a speech. However, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend: first, does he recognise that this is not only my view but the view of 117 right hon. and hon. Members? Secondly, if he were in Germany—he asked me what I would do—what would he do? Why should we contribute a greater proportion of our gross national product to arms than does West Germany?

Mr. Thomson: These are both perfectly fair points, and I will try to deal with them. I see nothing sacred about spending 5½ per cent. of our G.N.P. on defence. I find nothing repugnant about the principle of seeking to harmonise European defence budgets. My hon. Friend would hardly expect me to find it repugnant in view of my attitude about European co-operation generally. Whether we are inside or outside the Common Market, if the European nations co-operate together more closely in the harmonisation of their budgets and the more equal sharing of defence burdens, we could gain advantages in cooperative joint procurement in both the hardware and software sphere which might give welcome defence economies. Therefore, the principle of more equal sharing of defence burdens within the Alliance is a matter which commands wide support.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the number of signatures on his Amendment, but I put it to those who have supported the Amendment that the way in which the attempt to bring about a fairer sharing of defence burdens within the Alliance is done, the degree of agreement within which it is done, and the timescale on which it is done, are important.
As far as I am concerned, 5½ per cent. is not a sacred figure. Indeed, if our wealth starts to go up at a faster rate and


our defence spending stays static, the figure will automatically go down. It is not inconceivable that it might be below 4·2 per cent. in quite a short time if we get a good growth rate from the present Government. None of us would then be saying that we ought artificially to raise defence expenditure.
Apart from that, we ought continually to be looking for ways of reducing the defence burden by negotiation with the Warsaw Pact, by co-operation with our allies in the ways which I have suggested, or by economies in our own equipment. However, these economies should be justified on their own merits and not be subject to a blanket cut on a large scale.
Apart from feeling that the 5½ per cent. is not something to which I am attached, I see something politically significant about it. We on this side of the House have to face the fact that, although the defence budget has been rising in money terms because of inflation, in real terms it remains broadly in line with the targets set by the Labour Government, with relatively minor exceptions, which I will mention later.
I think that we on this side of the House ought to bear in mind the success which we have had in converting the Government to the concept of a defence ceiling squarely within the nation's economic resources. In opposition they regarded this concept as the ultimate heresy. They bitterly attacked my right hon. Friends, who were then Defence Ministers, in their long struggle to bring defence expenditure down from about 7 per cent. of G.N.P. to its present 5½ per cent.
But now they accept that concept. Indeed, the Defence Secretary yesterday, in another place, used these words:
all of us … recognise that the size of the Defence budget must be limited by the very proper calls on our resources by other Departments."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd February, 1972; Vol. 328, c. 400–1.]
What the present Chancellor of the Duchy regarded as an outrageous betrayal of security when he was in my place as Shadow Defence Minister has now become the conventional wisdom.
I should like to examine the defence budget figures in more detail. In money terms they are soaring to £2,854 million. However, no less than £262 million of that represents the rise in prices over

which this Government have presided during the last 12 months. At constant prices, as the White Paper makes clear, there is a difference of £61 million from the published target. Of this, £57 million represents a purely accounting charge in regard to recording Service purchases. It does not, therefore, represent a rise in defence expenditure. The remaining £4 million relates to extra defence expenditure to alleviate the tragic unemployment resulting from the Government's economic policies.
If one wearily tries to disentangle the course of Tory defence expenditure from rising prices—it is quite a task—since they came to office, the story is broadly like this: they accepted the Labour Government's targets, and since then they have added altogether about £34 million to the defence budget in real terms, to save jobs in places such as Clydeside and Lancashire, on extra naval vessels and Nimrod aircraft. Then there is £10 million extra as the price of the Tory election pledge to expand to battalion strength the regiments which had been reduced to company level.
It is utterly bogus for the Government to claim, as the Minister did in his speech, that they have given the Services security and certainty after the radical defence reviews of the Labour Government. The truth is that the degree of stability which Servicemen now deservedly enjoy is an inheritance from this side of the House. If hon. Members opposite will look at the Conservative Government's first White Paper, Cmnd. 4521, they will find that the Labour Government's figures for 1971–72, 1972–73, and 1973–74 are set out. They are £2,327 million, £2,230 million and £2,230 million. Inevitably, these are provisional figures, but their publication established the clear intention of giving the Services stability after a period of rapid, painful, but necessary change. We faced that change despite constant sniping from the then Opposition. That the Conservative party now recognise that we were right is proved by the way in which they are operating, with the exception which I have mentioned, within our defence targets. Their acceptance of the formerly detested defence ceiling is illustrated by the complaint that the Defence Secretary made yesterday, that the welcome rise in recruiting is causing him to make uncomfortable economies in equipment.
The whole House will be glad about the recruiting figures which the noble Lord described to the House, since the former levels were beginning to cause questions to be asked about the viability of a purely professional non-conscript defence force. I think that both sides of the House are entitled to share the credit for these recruiting figures. The outstanding contribution of the last Government was the introduction of the military salary; the outstanding contribution of the present Government has been a high and persistent level of unemployment.
I note that the next biennial review of Services' pay is due in April. I should be grateful for information later in the debate about the Government's intention in this regard. Now that their mishandling of the miners' pay claim has shattered their unjust policy of picking on the public sector as a kind of backdoor incomes policy, I profoundly hope that the Services will not be made the scapegoat for the Government's defeat by the miners. I should be grateful for further enlightenment on what the Government propose to do about this award in April.
I strongly support the policy of the short engagements described in the White Paper and which the noble Lord has just been describing to the House. The Service man who re-engages is by far the best recruiting sergeant. The figures for young Service men who stay on despite the new option to shorten their engagement following the Donaldson report are basically encouraging. We welcome, so far as it goes, the new option for a Service man to take on the kind of engagement from which he will have the right to give 18 months' notice of his intention to leave. It is a modest enough concession, 18 months' notice, but it is a concession in the right direction.
I was much impressed by an article in The Times recently by an Army officer typical of the modern Army, an officer who is doing social research on a defence scholarship in Edinburgh University. He showed that what he called
a quiet social revolution has been taking place in the Army over the past decade since the end of National Service.
and he added these words:
The results are very encouraging, particularly since most of the changes that have occurred have been generated from enlightened

thought within the Army, rather than from social pressures outside it.
He made a further point which, with facts and figures, was convincing to me, that
the soldier of the 70's is a volunteer who is certainly better trained, better paid, better housed, fitter and more self-discplined than the national norm.
This picture of the modern British soldier—with the notable exception of his housing—was amply confirmed for me last week when I paid a visit to the men serving in Northern Ireland. The Defence White Paper properly gives pride of place to the task the Army is performing there, and I would like to conclude by giving the House one or two impressions which I brought back.
Yesterday's outrage in Aldershot has brought tragically home to people on this side of the Irish Sea the kind of indiscriminate enemy that soldier and civilian alike face, and civilians of both the Catholic and Protestant communities, but despite the constant television coverage I do not think there is sufficient awareness in this country of the difficulties and discomforts which the forces face, quite apart from the dangers, which are part of their professional job.
I think of the midnight visit I paid to the men of the Queen's Own Highlanders who were guarding a municipal bus depot and eating, sleeping and living in a garage, amidst the Corporation buses which have been such a target for the I.R.A. These men were luckier than their predecessors, my local regiment, the Black Watch, who had to sleep, I gather, in the repair pits underneath the buses. There have been improvements, but their sleeping quarters are still cramped and congested. They were working on an 18-hour day for four months, broken only by one 72-hour leave. Apart from that, they are lucky to get one day off a month, and when they do get that day off they are so tired they just flop into their bunks and sleep—which may be a good thing, since these soldiers' normal off-duty resorts of the pub, the dance hall or the cinema are, generally speaking, out of bounds, unless they are lucky enough to be in one of the organised camps in Northern Ireland. Many of the troops on this demanding routine, against a background of constant tension, are not infantrymen. They are people manning some of the most sophisticated of the Army's weapons systems and normally


never have to undertake the foot-sloggers' routine of guards and patrols.
Despite this, the morale of the troops appears remarkably high, and I should like, as did the noble Lord, to pay tribute to their high degree of patience and impartiality. I have seen no signs at any level that their experience makes them anti-Catholic or pro-Protestant. They went to protect the Catholic, community from Protestant extremists. They are staying to protect the Protestant community from Catholic extremists. They would prefer to have to do neither, and one of their constant nightmares is that one day they might have to do both at once. It is worth remembering that these Service men reflect the normal religious composition of the British community as a whole, and contain the normal proportions of Catholics and Protestants and others.
I would like to say to some hon. Members opposite in this connection that we on this side of the House are becoming a little tired of being accused of being anti-Army when what we are against are some of the tasks laid on the Army to ease the political problems or to assuage the political prejudices of Stormont politicians.
I was struck, as anyone must be, by the youth of many of our soldiers. It is not simply a sign of advancing middle age on my part. The Times published on 15th February a harrowing feature on the front page showing the faces of the then 50 soldiers—now, regrettably, 58—killed in Northern Ireland. I was disturbed to notice that nine of them were aged 18 and one was only 17 years old. I think it very important to discover whether these youngsters represent a disproportionately high share of the casualties. The soldiers are being asked to do a job where their safety may depend greatly on their prudence, their patience, and their general level of experience.
I am reminded by a correspondent that in 1950 the age of soldiers serving in Korea was raised in the House, and within a few days the then Secretary of State for War, John Strachey, had announced that no soldier under 19, either Regular or National Service, should serve in Korea. The Minister will find the reference to that in the OFFICIAL REPORT dated 19th September, 1950, Vol. 478,

column 1700. I mention this because I hope that before the end of the debate the Minister will be able to give me a considered comment on the subject.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. He was referring to the unfortunate death of a soldier aged 17. Since that time, as he will be aware, no soldiers have been sent to Northern Ireland till they are 18. There was a change.

Mr. Thomson: I am glad the hon. Gentleman reminded me of that. It had slipped my mind. Nevertheless, the main point I am making about the 18 year olds is that this policy ought to be investigated.
I returned from Northern Ireland with two views, which, I admit, I had before I went there, strongly reinforced. The first is that the duty which politicians in this House and in Stormont owe to the serving soldiers is to show them some political light at the end of the tunnel so that they need not feel that their discomforts and dangers are endless. My second conviction—it has been reinforced by the event we discussed earlier today and which will be discussed in the House later this evening—is that the responsibility for security in Northern Ireland should now rest and be seen to rest unequivocally in Whitehall and Westminster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East did not get a satisfactory answer from the noble Lord when my hon. Friend earlier in this discussion raised the question of responsibility for security—to put it at its very mildest, in the twilight area of how responsibility for security and law and order is divided between the G.O.C., responsible to the Ministry of Defence, and the Stormont Government. It ought to be made clear.
I say this not because I believe that such a step is a political panacea. It will create problems as well as solve some important problems. I say it primarily as a defence spokesman because I believe that against the present polarisation in Northern Ireland we owe it to our soldiers. The deployment of troops in support of the civil power in any part of the United Kingdom is an


emergency situation. If it persists, as this emergency has done, the security police must clearly be under the control of the central Government. This would be taken for granted if troops were to be used in Scotland or Wales. It is the necessary price which the Stormont politicians must recognise they have to pay for being part of the United Kingdom. It is the soldier—this is the point my hon. Friend has in mind—who has to bear the consequences of political decisions in the security field. These political decisions, from what I regard as the massive political miscalculation of internment onwards, determine the degree of danger and provocation the soldier has to face. In present circumstances, in justice to the soldier, the degree of danger and provocation he has to face, must depend on the political judgment of the Government who send him there and not on what Stormont regards as its own political necessities.
Finally, I return to what inevitably has been the recurrent theme of my speech, and that is the level of British defence expenditure compared with that of our Allies. I repeat what I said earlier. I think there would be general agreement about the desirability of more equal sharing of the burden within the Alliance, and the desirability of the proportion of the G.N.P. spent on defence by those who are engaged in collective security being roughly equal between one nation and another. But this is not what is at issue. The issue we have to face here is whether one seeks to do this by drastic unilateral action or through multilateral negotiation either between one alliance and another or within the Alliance.
I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of those who believe in a big unilateral gesture by the United Kingdom. I have always recognised and respected the genuineness of their belief. But I remind them that on the issue of unilateralism against multilateralism the majority view on this side of the House has for generations been in favour of collective security and multilateral disarmament as against unilateral action.
I remind my hon. Friends that there have been many occasions in the past when there has been the grossest and most unjust representation by the Tory party of the attitude of this side of the

House to defence expenditure in general. At a time when the hope of multilateral force reductions is a live hope and depends on solidarity, perhaps above all at a time when we face the outrages which are so much in the public mind as a result of what happened in Aldershot yesterday, my side of the House should take no risk of being misrepresented by urging on the country a unilateral cut in British expenditure of about £600 million.

5.52 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I hope the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) will excuse me for not following him into the ideological quicksands of his closing sentence in which he tried to equate multilateral disarmament with the predicament of our troops in Ulster.
The White Paper we are talking about today is like the curate's egg, good in parts. I will first say a word or two about the good parts. We all recognise and pay tribute to the better feeling in the Services and about the Services. This is happily reflected in recruiting, which has marvellously improved. I welcome the additional naval shipbuilding and the additional four battalions which the Minister of State told us about today, including the 3rd Battalion of Greenjackets and the 1st Battalion Royal Hants. Good for Winchester! The Buccaneers and and Nimrods are also very welcome.
In passing, I should like formally to thank the Government and all Ministers on the Front Bench for the gift of H.M.S. "Belfast" to the Belfast Trust. Their imaginative gesture has paid off to the extent that 160,000 people have visited the ship during the three winter months.
That, I am afraid, is all that is good about the White Paper. Overall, not enough material is available in the hands of the Services to enable us to face the present threat and to make up for the leeway of the Labour years. We must not forget the tremendous leeway which accumulated during the years of Labour Government. If the defence policy outlined in the White Paper had been served up to us by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), we in the Tory party would have been after him like a pack of foxhounds.
I will outline briefly why I say this. I hope the Minister of State and his


ministerial colleagues understand that our criticism is designed to help them and not the reverse. By and large, we think that they are doing a good job with the resources they have, but those resources are inadequate, and that will be my theme today.
Despite the usual pattern of defence debates, I believe that this House is not the proper place to discuss detailed and technical decisions of the Ministry of Defence. It is not my job to teach the Admiralty Board to suck its eggs, but it is our responsibility in the House to speak out loud and clear if a sufficient share of the resources of the nation is not being allocated to defence. Defence is being starved and has been starved for many years past, particularly during the years of Labour government.
The OFFICIAL REPORT is littered with quotations from Conservative Front Bench speakers when in opposition. Certain remarks stand up like milestones, for example the remark of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that "Either this country is adequately defended or it is not". It has not been adequately defended during the last six years, and the White Paper does not show a sufficient increase in resources to invalidate my right hon. and learned Friend's remark.
Before urging right across the board further defence expenditure one should, logically, say a word or two about the threat. The Minister of State pointed out how this is always overlooked in a democracy. There is always something more urgent, just as this debate today has been overtaken by more urgent affairs. The Minister of State outlined the threat, and so does the White Paper. Both emphasise the threat of the enormous growth of the Soviet Navy. This was well summed up in an article in Time magazine on 31st January, which I hope the Minister of State has seen. According to a tabular statement in that article the Soviet Union has 90 nuclear propelled submarines—and each month one more is being built and completed—and 260 conventional submarines. One cannot possibly say that a force of nearly 400 U boats is a defensive force.
The danger lies in the pressures which may be exerted, as my right hon. Friend said today. Some years ago President

Kennedy summed up the predicament in these words:
The greatest danger to the West is being nibbled to death in conditions of nuclear stalemate.
Given that this is the threat—and we do not disagree about the threat, it is obvious for all to see—the response to the threat outlined in the White Paper is very feeble indeed. The second half of the White Paper which outlines what response we shall make to the threat has many shortcomings.
First, there is not enough infantry. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in another place said yesterday that there was not enough infantry. I suppose it is generally agreed on both sides of the House that the protection of Ulster will be a long job, whichever way it goes. The description of the life of the troops in Ulster given by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East was in itself an argument for more infantry. Units should not continually be required to go hack again and again for further tours in Ulster to endure the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman described.
Also, the Royal Air Force is not adequately equipped and what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon about the shortage of combat aircraft sums up the situation very well. The R.A.F. may not have to drive off raids now, but it should not be kept short of material. The White Paper does little or nothing to encourage the R.A.F.
I have two specific points about manpower which I should like the Minister to deal with when he winds up. My right hon. Friend spoke last year about the 15-year old engagement, the proposal that boys who wished to volunteer for any of the Services at 15 should be absolved from doing their last year at school, should enter the Services and continue their general education pari passu with their military education. We have not yet had an answer on this. I think perhaps one year is a sufficient time to consider this suggestion, which I should have thought would have been attractive both to the Minister and to his right hon. and fair Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Next, would my hon. Friend in his reply confirm that there will be no disadvantage to men whose tours overseas,


for example in Malta, are curtailed. Servicemen, for the first time in centuries, are now adequately paid, and many have entered into hire purchase commitments to buy motor cars, and so on. They may find themselves in difficulties, and I hope that no disadvantage whatever will accrue to these men.
I wish mostly in my speech to deal with H.M.S. "Eagle". The Government have been extraordinarily coy on this subject. They announced only just before the House rose for Christmas that "Eagle" was to be scrapped. The Government no doubt hoped that this announcement would be lost in a cloud of Father Christmas beards and tinsel paper, and would go unnoticed; they thought that by the New Year the matter would have been quietly forgotten. But this has not been the case. This issue stood out like a sore thumb. I have had a very large mailbag on the subject of H.M.S. "Eagle". She is a fine ship, and in many ways a better ship than H.M.S. "Ark Royal". Until about a fortnight ago she was a viable operational aircraft carrier.
When my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence took office he mentioned the gap which existed in this sphere. He said
First, we are remedying a real weakness in our naval forces which would have resulted in the 1970's from the policy of the previous Government to phase out the aircraft carriers before providing the necessary alternative weapons.
That is the crux of the matter. We shall in time get the necessary alternative weapons, but we have certainly not got them yet.
I do not regard the missiles about which the Government is thinking, such as Exocet, as in any way satisfactory alternative weapons. Missiles can only be used to start or continue wars. But it is only aircraft flown by human hand, with observations by the human eye from those aircraft, which can bring back the necessary information to enable Governments to get on the hot-line to stop wars.
One of the arguments advanced is that H.M.S. "Eagle" needs a refit. Of course she does, as does any ship which is in commission. But it would be quicker to

refit "Eagle" now, to bring her to a serviceable state, whether or not she is given the ability to fly Phantoms, than it would be to build frigates as an alternative. The building of frigates will be a very much longer job. Certainly the shipyards on the Clyde would be glad to undertake the refit of the "Eagle". They do not normally refit aircraft carriers, but undoubtedly could undertake this work very satisfactorily. Against any refitting costs should be offset the cost of the unemployment relief being drawn by people who are now unable to find work on the Clyde. I feel that this argument should be borne in mind when considering the cost of a refit.
There are also large holes in the argument on the manpower side. It is said that H.M.S. "Eagle" cannot be manned, and yet at the same time Fleet Air Arm personnel are being made redundant, and such redundancies are going full speed ahead. The Government have only to halt that trend and would immediately have a considerable contribution to the ship's company in the very categories that are needed. If "Eagle" were brought back into commission, she would probably be a great deal more useful than H.M.S. "Blake" and H.M.S. "Tiger", which are among the worst abortions which have ever been thrust on the Royal Navy.
If "Eagle" were kept in reserve and were commissioned in case of emergency, it must be remembered that naval reservists, who are mentioned in such glowing terms in the White Paper, are available to serve on her. There are practically no reserve ships available now, and it would be an admirable arrangement if such reservists were able to serve in "Eagle".
I have been told by my hon. Friend that 350 to 400 men would be required to keep "Eagle" in maintained reserve. My hon. Friend is falling for a line of thought which the Royal Navy has adopted in an amiable way over the centuries, namely, that they will never use one man if they can use ten. A figure of 350 to 400 men is quite needlessly large to keep a ship in maintained reserve. If H.M.S. "Eagle" were sent to the Clyde, she could be looked after by civilians without any use of naval manpower at all.
I sum up my argument by saying that this fine ship should be in reserve to


cope with unforeseen contingencies. She may well be needed for use in case of damage or breakdown of H.M.S. "Ark Royal". This can happen at any time. Ships can go out of action—or can make a better job of ramming Russian ships than the "Ark Royal" did recently!
Secondly, there is a requirement to strengthen the N.A.T.O. reserve. We would look proper Charlies if H.M.S. "Eagle" was taken out of commission and in six months N.A.T.O. was screaming for assistance and we were unable to help. Thirdly, there is the consideration involving Royal Air Force Buccaneers for which shore bases are not available. It is not adequate for Ministers to say that the task of aircraft carriers would be taken over by the R.A.F. flying from shore bases since in most cases we no longer have such bases.
We also need "Eagle" as a potential anti-submarine carrier, operating "Sea King" and other helicopters.
The emphasis at the moment should be on tracking Soviet U-boats, and the only way to do so in this nuclear age is by helicopter. Frigates go at only half the U-boats' speed in heavy weather, and are at a great disadvantage when opposed to a nuclear submarine. The only way to track such submarines is by the use of helicopters and, since helicopters must take off from a deck somewhere, why not from H.M.S. "Eagle"?
Furthermore, I believe that the broad decks of "Eagle" would be admirable for flying the Harrier. We have all heard about the trials over the past ten years, and "Eagle" might well be useful in that respect.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman costed the proposals which he is putting to the Government?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Yes, the Government have done the sums. The hon. Gentleman can see this if he cares to study the relevant parliamentary Question.
The question of "Eagle" is only one aspect of the whole larger question of trade protection. This affects the future ability of the Royal Navy to carry out its traditional rôle of the protection of British trade routes. It is a basic fact that 120 merchant ships from overseas

enter ports in Western Europe every day, seven days a week, to discharge 1 million tons of cargo. Since we are entering the European Economic Community, we must recognise the importance of overseas trade routes to Western Europe. If we are to make our full contribution to that Community we must insist that it be outward-looking rather than inward-looking.
Britons cannot make a living by staying at home and taking in one another's own washing. Any Government which fully appreciates this point will not turn "Eagle" into bedsteads and razor-blades.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this hour. I must apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) for not following him in his argument. The closest that I ever came to the aircraft carrier which he has mentioned was once when I was a lorry driver and carried the bevel gears of the ship's engines. That is the nearest that I ever got to it, so the hon. and gallant Member may forgive me for not following his argument.
I am one of the signatories of the Amendment which is on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and others, which I hope will be selected tomorrow night. I cannot help feeling that instead of being overawed by the Soviet threats referred to almost continuously by occupants of the Government Front Bench, we should be thinking much more on the lines of the S.A.L.T. talks, a lot more about a European security conference and a lot more in terms of reductions in the percentage of the gross national product which we spend on defence. I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiments of the Amendment, which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members on this side of the House.
I wish to refer particularly to one extravagance which I think this country can well afford to do without and that the country should stop kidding itself about. I refer to what is stated on page 42 of the White Paper that we have before us. Under the heading "Other Projects", in reference to research and


development under the subheading, "Electronics", there is the paragraph:
Linesman/Mediator, a control and reporting system for air defence and air traffic contol.
I make no secret of the fact that this has been an old stalking horse of mine. It usually attracts my Parliamentary Questions at 50 a time and I usually get non-answers at 50 a time from the Government Front Bench. I hope that we shall get more significant and meaningful answers on Linesman/Mediator in this debate than we have had so far.
This is a sort of early warning radar system which is supposed to be part of a N.A.T.O. chain stretching from Turkey to Canada. It is supposed to stretch 300 miles around the coasts of this country, although it is not too fussy about the west of the country. It was originally conceived in the 1957 White Paper on Defence. That was the first time that the party opposite announced that nuclear retaliation and a nuclear striking force would henceforth be the hallmark of this country's defence policy. Although that was thought of as an essential part of the 1957 White Paper, the technology and the thoughts behind the White Paper are still riddled through and through Linesman/Mediator. In essence it was an early warning radar system dreamed up a long time before the Soviet threats to which hon. Members opposite frequently refer and certainly before the threats by the increasing Soviet Navy to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. It was a 1957 concept dreamed up long before the nuclear submarines we shall hear a lot about in this debate. It was originally thought of in an offensive capacity and now we are relying on it to give us a comprehensive notional defensive picture of both missile and aircraft attacks on this country.
If this system is supposed to be so good and can give us all that is claimed for it as a comprehensive national picture—and we have had extravagant claims made by the party opposite for Linesman/Mediator—why are we at the same time strengthening the secondary radar defence of this country? I give credit to Mr. Chapman Pincher of the Daily Express for publishing the story about this because it must have taken some rooting out. I hope that he and the Express will stick to their guns. We

are going through the process of souping up our Second World War radar system and it is not Linesman/Mediator that we are to rely on but that old fashioned system souped up. The radar system feeds data into the headquarters of R.A.F. Strike Command at High Wycombe and that is still the main part of our early warning radar system.
I have often asked spokesmen on defence of the party opposite what kind of fall back is provided. Of course they say that if Linesman/Mediator fails we have an adequate fall back, but I submit that the only fall back is in these Second World War radar systems. If we have only this kind of fall back then I do not think we can count on all the extravagant claims made for Linesman/Mediator. We have the system at Fylingsdales in Yorkshire with a four minute warning, but that does not deal with conventional strategy or aeroplanes but primarily with missiles. Then there is the B.M.E.W.S. system. What protection are we supposed to derive from the fact that that American-controlled system provides a 15-minute early warning? That is the purpose of the B.M.E.W.S.; it is not supposed to protect us, but to protect the American deterrent.
I hope that whoever winds up the debate will tell us about other elements in the N.A.T.O. chain of defence. If those elements do not contain anything but B.M.E.W.S., Linesman/Mediator and souped up Second World War radar systems, we should be very much concerned about the state of protection in this country. N.A.T.O. and the Soviet Union seem to be putting an increasing reliance on the concept of conventional saturation. If we start to use conventional saturation with aeroplanes, even when Linesman/Mediator is fully operative—and we are told by the party opposite that that might be by the middle of next year—Linesman itself will be saturated. If we are to go back to lines of conventional strategy and use more and more aeroplanes and submarines and conventional forces, we shall find that we have a system which is not attuned to this new emphasis.
The deficiency of this supposedly marvellous early warning system is that all its energies face east. There is nothing to protect us from our enemies if they Many in the Royal Air Force are getting


increasingly worried that Soviet bombers and missiles could come through the back door. The whole of the radar system is attuned on the supposition that the attack would come from the east. That is not something which we can always rely upon. Apart from this, Linesman/ Mediator is all concentrated in hangar No. 1 at West Drayton. The Americans had the sagacity to locate S.A.G.E. in 24 buried sites. All that the Russians would need to do would be to drop a bomb on Hangar No. 1 and bang would go our early warning system if it all depends on Linesman/Mediator.
I say, "Linesman/Mediator" because we are concentrating on a defence early warning system and civilian traffic control. I have been highly critical of the way in which Linesman/Mediator has been introduced to control British civilian air traffic. The British Airline Pilots Association has been very much concerned about this, and so have the air traffic controllers. It is no secret in this industry that Mediator has been acceptable to the staffs who have been operating it only because their promotion prospects have been improved and because some of the ground rules of air traffic control have been changed over the past year. If we are to get Linesman acceptable only on the same kind of basis, again we have just cause to be worried. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is precisely the computerised part of the civilian Mediator for air traffic control which is very worrying, and it is this kind of equipment which is also most deficient and most worrying in Linesman.
I come now in a few words to the way in which the contract for Linesman was handed out. Many of us who are "computer watchers" were amazed when Plessey got the contract. It is not a company which had previously been involved in computer projects, though it is an excellent component manufacturer. It seems that the contract for Linesman was handed up on a "Buggins's turn basis", because Marconi-Elliot had most of the previous contracts. I hope that we shall be told about it, especially in view of the rumours that are circulating to the effect that Plessey would like to get out of the contract altogether. We know about the cost escalation. We know the obsolete technology. We know

that Plessey is not only worried about the contract but about its reputation.
I pay tribute to newspaper correspondents like Rex Mallik who have pointed out that it is not only a 1957 concept but also 1957 technology with which we are dealing. We are dealing with a computerised system which has to rely upon reserve batteries, the number of which would cover a football field. We are dealing with a computerised system which will need 2,000 personnel to operate it. It may be that they will go round wearing air raid wardens' hats, on bicycles, and with wind-up telephones so that they can keep in touch with each other. If we need 2,000 personnel to operate a highly computerised system like that, that is all that they must be doing.
It is a technology which is rapidly becoming obsolescent. It is a technology whose language in softwear is not compatible with some of the other N.A.T.O. languages. It is a technology which is even worrying the manufacturers.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman tries to make any further party capital out of this will he tell the House whether he has seen an article in the Aeronautical Journal for January, 1972, which describes the limitations that the hon. Gentleman is discussing and makes the point that by 1969 the shortcomings of the system had become obvious. I do not remember hearing about that at the time from the Government of the day.

Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look back, although I do not take any personal credit for it, he will see that I was trying to table Questions on the subject even then.
I want to know, too, why it is that we have not installed the datalinks in this system. At the moment, we rely upon telephone connections. The more interfaces that we have between the data retrieving points, the slower the process works and the more opportunity there is for mistakes.
Again, when will it be working? If and when it is working, what kind of system will it be? Is there to be some kind of second complex to back it up? I am aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology has asked for a


complete paper from the Ministry of Defence on the subject. When the Committee has finished its controversial discussion with Rothschild, I hope that it will take Linesman/Mediator to task.
I cannot help feeling that this is just about the biggest confidence trick to have been perpetrated since the introduction of large-scale civil defence. I was always suspicious about the advice given in civil defence about whitewashing windows and, if possible, making tea in dustbins. I cannot help feeling that this is one of the biggest whitewashing projects that we have ever had. Certainly it is one of the biggest and most whitewashed. Certainly it is one of the biggest dustbin's-full of technology that we have had.
If we want to bring down our percentage of the gross national product to the European average or below, Linesman/ Mediator is where we should start.

6.25 p.m.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I apologise in advance to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) if I do not take up any of his points. I want to be more down to earth than he was.
May I begin by giving my personal tribute to the Army in Northern Ireland for its constraint, its professionalism its discipline, and its good humour, sometimes in intolerable conditions. In my estimation, no other army in the world today could have put up such a fine performance.
The criticism has been made that there is nothing devastatingly new in the present White Paper. It reports good progress. It gives news of equipment. Above all, it reflects stability.
There are hon. Members on this side of the House who, because of the Soviet threat, would like to see the defence budget having a greater share of the gross national product. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has other views, of course. We know that at present we are unlikely to get a greater share. However, one of the frightening features of the defence budget is that 50 per cent. of it goes towards the pay of personnel, which leaves only about 39 per cent. for equipment. Our job is to ensure that the money that we

have is spent in the best possible way. To that end, I believe and hope that we shall do much more in the way of standardisation of equipment, especially with our N.A.T.O. allies.
Standardisation means not only a financial saving. In some cases, it means a great improvement in inter-operability, and that applies especially to the Royal Air Force. We are pleased to read about the M.R.C.A., a co-project with Germany and Italy, of a project with France for Jaguar aircraft and helicopters, another with Germany and Italy for 155 millimetre medium guns, self-propelled and towed, another with Belgium for a new range of air-portable tracked, aluminium-armoured, combat reconnaissance vehicles, the first of which the Scorpion, is to come into service very shortly. It is to be hoped that standardisation can be carried on even down to details like our soft vehicles, because I am sure that we shall get savings in that way.
I do not propose to discuss the Navy or the Royal Air Force. I shall leave those to hon. Members better qualified to discuss them than I am. I intend to confine my remarks to the Army, and I speak under three headings: first, manpower; secondly, a word about B.A.O.R.; and thirdly, about our reserves.
The recruiting figures shown in the White Paper are admirable. I am convinced that they are not connected in any way with unemployment. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will relish the fact that perhaps unemployment has had its effect in urging people to reengage. But I am certain that it has not caused people to engage initially. They are engaging initially for three reasons. The first is the introduction of a military salary. The second is Northern Ireland. A young man joins the Army to do something worth while. Conditions in Northern Ireland may be unpleasant, but he feels that he is doing something useful. The third reason is stability.
Today, we see a great contrast with the period under the last Administration, when, particularly in the years between 1965 and 1968, every White Paper detailed cuts and further cuts. It is pleasing to hear about the resuscitation of these four battalions, because it is in


Northern Ireland that the burden falls upon the infantry; and it is for that very reason that they are so important.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the 15-year olds. They form 20 per cent. of the entry. As we know, in all the Service establishments and units, education is included as part of the curriculum. Surely, we ought to be allowed to retain them initially at that age. The officer recruiting, on the other hand, is not so good. The figures for Sandhurst are down. The figures for the short-service commission at Mons are down although the university cadets entry system is improving. I hope that this new stability we are getting will encourage careers masters at schools, who advise boys, to take a rather more sympathetic approach to Service life than they have in the past.
I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of a "notice engagement", because there is no question that the Donaldson Committee pointed out that a long engagement is a deterrent when it is not known what the conditions of service life are going to be. I would ask the Minister to tell us, in his winding up, a little more about the centralised selection system for the Army now operating at Sutton Coldfield, and what effect that is having on the Army.
In November last the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee which deals with defence visited Germany and the Army and Royal Air Force there. I would like to raise three points which although minor are worth raising. The first was found to be common to both the R.A.F. and the Army and concerned the amount of unnecessary paper work that is connected with the issue and checking of all forms of stores and equipment. We felt this to be wasteful of manpower. Although very thorough it was entirely unproductive. The powers of commanding officers of write-off were ridiculously small in comparison with the value of the equipment they held on charge. We thought both these two points could be looked into.
A second point concerns medical coverage in the Rhine Army. The White Paper points out that there is a shortage of doctors. In the Army a doctor is attached to a regular unit, and over and above that there are field ambulance units and hospitals which also have doctors. Soldiers

marry much younger now and there are more wives and families in Germany at present than there have been in the past. When units go out on training, usually for between six and nine months in the year, their doctor should go with them. This means that either the families or the unit suffers. We felt that in the same way as civilian teachers are provided for soliders' children in schools, so doctors should be provided for their care in the garrisons.
A third point I wish to raise is a hardy annual which comes up every time a Member of Parliament visits the Rhine Army—the general request that there should be British television programmes in Rhine Army. I know that that would be expensive but it is very much wanted. May I refer to a final point concerning the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve. Here, thanks to the action of the Government, we have had an expansion. We have had a new armoured car regiment and 20 new infantry type units; and the recruiting for these new units is going amazingly well. In the county association of which I have the honour to be chairman our recruiting is already 100 per cent.
Today the Territorial Army requires a period of stability, in exactly the same way as the Regular Army, but that does not mean to say that improvements cannot be effected. I should like to see three improvements. First, an improvement in the machinery for call-up. At the present moment in an emergency there is no means for a partial call-up. If the TAVR is to be called up it has to be called up in toto. We have seen that in Northern Ireland, where there are no less than 3,000 TAVR. It has not been able to call on those men for that very reason. I go further. We have seen the distressing events of these last weeks. We have seen how the police have been overburdened, and had the emergency got worse it is possible that the Services might have had to be called up to carry out the transportation of essential supplies. A partial call-out of the TAVR there would have produced a uniformed, disciplined body with communications and mobility, which would have been able to support the police, not in dealing with strikers but in backing up the police and perhaps taking over some of their routine duties.
We know also that civil defence, as we know it, has completely disappeared and nothing is left in this country for any emergency, whether it is a landslide or a "Torrey Canyon." These are occasions when a partial call-out in an area might be extremely useful.
May I plead secondly for a few more soft vehicles of the Land Rover type and wireless sets for the newly-formed infantry type units. The present scale is very meagre. This would not be expensive and would add to those units' interest and efficiency. Finally, looking ahead to the future, it may be that the United States might reduce its force levels in Germany or in Europe. If that happened there might be a greater demand for more British troops. We know that the regular forces, on a voluntary basis—and long may they remain on that basis—cannot be enlarged to any great extent. The only possible way of increasing their strength would be by increasing the size of the T.A.V.R. which already has a rôle to reinforce Rhine Army. Therefore, looking ahead, possibly in the future, to the expansion of the T.A.V.R., could I ask the Minister of Defence in particular to lend a rather more sympathetic ear to the retention of several drill halls which are now in dispute.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I was in agreement with one point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and that was when he spoke about the possibilities of rationalisation through joint procurement projects in Europe. Had this been a long debate I should have liked to have asked the Government at some length how they see this being achieved and what part the new Procurement Executive will play in this. The White Paper describes in considerable detail the arrangements that have been made for domestic procurement but says little about how this is to be encouraged in the work of the Eurogroup.
In the short time available I want to put one or two questions about the rôle of the British forces in Ireland. The House was deeply shocked by the horrifying outrage perpetrated yesterday at Aldershot and every one of us would wish to join in expressing our sympathy

to the relatives and friends of the victims of this brutal and indiscriminate act. What happened at Aldershot has again tragically demonstrated the evil nature of the enemy our Army now confronts in Ireland. Those who seek by such acts of violence to spread confusion and fear must know that every bombing and every shooting stiffens our resolve to protect our fellow citizens from such insensate and murderous attacks.
The task of the Army in Northern Ireland is one of the most difficult that it could be called upon to undertake in peace time. It calls for qualities of courage, watchfulness, patience and, above all, restraint. Over 15,000 men are now stationed in Northern Ireland, about six times more than it was originally expected would be necessary.
They have a formidable task, for a quite disproportionate disruption of civil life can be caused by a few outlaws using the methods of the urban guerrilla. I am glad to have had the opportunity of visiting a number of units of the Army in Northern Ireland with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson). I can testify from my personal experience to the Army's consciousness of the need for these potential qualities. The tour of duty in Northern Ireland is on a rota of four months, and that is quite right. Most of those serving there are living and operating in conditions which my right hon. Friend so graphically described and which are extremely rigorous and continually demanding.
I was struck by the good-humoured acceptance on the part of the soldier of what is a most distasteful and stressful job. We have an Army of men, not saints; but I pay high tribute to the men of the many regiments who have distinguished themselves by their service in Northern Ireland since 1969. The tasks which they have been called upon to undertake are not among those which soldiers expect to have to face, especially in peace time. This makes the record of our soldiers all the more creditable.
Having said that, I must state with some firmness that the Opposition is dissatisfied with the political direction of the Army. Equally, the Opposition rejects some of the political assumptions which provide the framework for certain of the military operations upon which the


Army is engaged. It is common ground that the rôle of the Army has greatly changed since those summer days over two years ago when it was welcomed, particularly by the minority community in Northern Ireland. Whereas the prevention of inter-communal strife was the original purpose of the Army's task, as it is now conceived it has a more multifarious rôle.
Under the umbrella concept of assisting the civil power and maintaining law and order the Army is being called upon to play a number of different rôles in different parts of the Province. The escalation of terrorist violence has led to the widening of the Army's rôle and its methods of operation. Thus in Belfast a direct effort is being made to eliminate terrorism by capture of the terrorists and, although I say so with considerable caution, apparently with a certain degree of success. In Londonderry the Army is entrenched between the two communities. It is not employed at present in an all-out campaign of the Belfast type.
In the rural areas it appears that the Army is seeking to back up the operations in the cities by vigilance. On the Border some effort is being made to check the flow of arms and I.R.A. men into the Province. In addition to these predominantly military rôles the Army is available to the civil power to strengthen its hand in the event of civil disturbance. It is probably not wholly realistic to attempt to draw a hard and clear line between Army activities which are of a predominantly military character and those which are primarily of a policing nature. The rôles are interwoven.
What is clear is that the success of the Army in its military rôle in limiting the effectiveness of the I.R.A. depends to a considerable extent upon the degree of confidence which the minority community has in its performance and political direction. Only if the Army enjoys that confidence will the doors be closed to the terrorists and will the flow of information be made available to us. It must be said that that confidence is almost wholly lacking. Above all, it appears to have been undermined because the Army is now firmly identified by both communities as the policing instrument of the Stormont Government.

There are three main reasons for this identification of the Army with Stormont. First, some of the military operations are thought to be more designed by politicians to show the flag to the majority community than to achieve military results. In practical terms the cratering of roads and the Army's patrolling of quiescent country towns appears to have yielded small dividends. Secondly, it is now recognised that the Army stands behind the R.U.C. to back up its policing control of crowds. It is inevitable in this situation that the Army is seen to be clearly acting at the instance of the civil power which is Stormont.
Thirdly, notwithstanding the answerability of the G.O.C. to the Government, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Joint Security Council chaired by Mr. Faulkner which meets once a week, ostensibly as a consultative body, gives every appearance of being a body which decides in practice how to deal with the developing situation in which the Army is involved. In the Joint Security Council the advice of Stormont is dominant. There is now in Northern Ireland a wide expectation that the United Kingdom will take the political initiative to break the deadlock and fulfil the promise that the Government made to seek means of securing a permanent rôle for the minority in the Government of Northern Ireland. That initiative is militarily imperative if progress is to be made in the war against the gunman and the bombers. This is particularly true of Londonderry.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has put forward his proposals. As part of this awaited initiative the United Kingdom Government should seek to strengthen the capacity of the Army to eliminate terrorism by taking steps to end the identification of the Army with the Stormont Government. It is not only a matter of the Army's image, although that is vitally important; it is ultimately a question of political responsibility for decisions which are being taken. These decisions must be taken here. The present division of responsibility for the conduct of security operations is highly anomalous and should be ended. The Government should start by taking a long hard look at the Joint Security Council.
I must put two further less essential points to the Under-Secretary. Is he in a position to say, in the light of the action which the Government of the Republic of Ireland is taking at this time against the I.R.A., what prospects there are of obtaining the co-operation of the Government of the Republic of Ireland in controlling the danger?
Secondly, in view of the interest that we all have in the conditions of operation of the Servicemen in the area, would he look into the possibility of providing air transport direct to Germany for those of our troops who are based there, and whose families are living there, to enable the 72-hour break in the four-month tour of duty to be a real recreation and respite from the trials of service in Northern Ireland?
In the tragedy of Northern Ireland many innocent people have already lost their lives, many constituents have fallen in the struggle. The Opposition is wholly determined that conditions of peace and order shall be restored.

6.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): It is with great pleasure that I welcome the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to the Dispatch Box for the first time in his capacity as Opposition defence spokesman. I think all of us appreciate the care and attention he has given to the problems of Northern Ireland, in particular, and the sympathy he displayed on the basis of his first-hand knowledge. I warmly appreciate that one of the first things he did on achieving this responsibility was to go there and see things for himself. He quite obviously appreciates the tremendous complexity of the operational rôle of the Army in the province.
I hope he will not think that I am being unduly contentious if I emphasise most strongly, and ask him to bear in mind when having conversations with people in Northern Ireland, that there is no question of the British Army acting as a tool of the Stormont Government or any particular faction. It is quite clearly under the control of Westminster. What he said is just part of the myth of the situation. People exist on myths about

Northern Ireland. Let me make it quite clear to him what is the responsibility on which the G.O.C. operates—and the position is quite clear and has certainly not been changed since this Government took office: the G.O.C.'s responsibility is unequivocally to the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, the very directive under which he works as Director of Operations in Northern Ireland is issued to him by the Chiefs of Staff. There is more I could say, but I did not expect to intervene in the debate and would have preferred my hon. Friend to do so, but he has decided to wind up the debate later.
Many other questions have been raised and there is one to which I will refer very briefly. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) wanted to be assured that there would be no financial disadvantages through curtailment of overseas tours, and had particularly in mind forces which are being withdrawn from Malta. I can give him that assurance categorically.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) raised a number of points. I am grateful to him for the support he has given consistently to the Army since it has been engaged in this arduous campaign in Northern Ireland. It is a little early to judge the effects of the central recruiting centre, but early reports indicate that the theory is likely to be successful—namely, that those who wish to join a particular unit will find themselves getting the right job in the right place at the right time in the Army. Therefore we should have very contented soldiers.
I am looking personally into the question of television in B.A.O.R. I am sorry that I cannot report anything to the House this evening, but the House will be informed in due course of any plans we might have to bring this facility to our soldiers.
I was asked about the T.A. in Northern Ireland. It must seem to many people ridiculous that there should be such a highly trained force there which is unable to play a direct part as a TAVR in the problems in the province. If the Government decided, for example, that the circumstances justified the call-out of the TAVR—and the hon. Member


knows the various call-out liabilities—the Queen's Order would indeed formally cover the whole reserve. That we know, but it would still be up to the Secretary of State for Defence to decide which members were to be sent notices to report for duty. Partial call-out is therefore feasible. But the position in Northern Ireland is rather different: it is that members of the TAVR can be called out only for permanent service, full-time service, giving up civilian jobs. It is not possible to call out members for weekend and evening duties, like the U.D.R. As far as the U.D.R. is concerned, it is possible for members of the TAVR to leave it and to serve as part-time members of the U.D.R.; we welcome those who wish to join and to serve the interests of the province in that capacity.
I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) for the many encouraging words of support he addressed to the Army and for the compliments he paid our forces in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, he referred to our attitude in respect of disarmament and the need for a détente, and it was in a most unfair way. I do not want to be unduly controversial as I see that he is absent at this time, but he made the rather stale charge that the Government are dragging their feet over mutual and balanced force reduction. We had this charge last year. He knows, and other hon. Members who have studied the matter for a number of years know, that mutual and balanced force reduction is a very complex matter and that to find a reduction formula which leaves the security of both sides unimpaired is difficult.
There are two things for N.A.T.O. to do in relation to M.B.F.R. One is to study the enormous political and military complexities of the subject. This is being done, and our own country is making a major contribution to those studies. The other is to take an early opportunity of discovering whether the Russians—assuming that they are prepared to discuss M.B.F.R. at all—are prepared to talk anything like the same language as N.A.T.O. To discover this was precisely N.A.T.O.'s object in appointing Signor Brosio's exploratory mission last October. Her Majesty's Government supported the appointment of that mission and still hope that the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries will receive it.
The Soviet see no contradiction in from time to time professing interest in M.B.F.R. while increasing their naval strength in the Mediterranean, in talking about the need for world disarmament while expanding their fleet on a worldwide basis, in discussing strategic arms limitation with the United States while strengthening and expanding the range and variety of their nuclear weapons.
A very important point was raised by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). It was a specialised point and I hope that it will be agreed that in the very few minutes at my disposal it would be impossible for me to deal adequately with it, but I assure him that in what remains of the debate tomorrow one of my hon. Friends will deal with the matter.
Finally, a major feature of the I.R.A.'s activity has been the ceaseless torrent of propaganda, unscrupulous distortion of the truth and downright, manufactured lies. Undoubtedly, one of the major objectives of their campaign is to try to distort and undermine the reputation of the British Army, presumably with a view to fostering hatred, alienating the Catholics of Northern Ireland from the forces of law and order, attracting sympathy abroad and producing a sense of unease among British people and attacking the Army's morale. One of the encouraging points from both sides of the House has been the warm and encouraging words of sympathy and support for the Army from hon. Members.
As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House know, I have some responsibility for the Ulster Defence Regiment. A few days ago a member of that regiment, a Roman Catholic, was dragged from the cab of his bus when carrying out his normal day-time job. He was hooded, shot and dumped in the street. I ask hon. Members and those outside this House who sympathise perhaps with the political aspirations of the I.R.A. to reflect for a moment on this. Is this supposed to carry forward the cause of a united and peaceful Ireland? Is this the action of freedom fighters devoted to a just and honourable cause? Does this show how the I.R.A. has, as it claims, the Catholic population of Northern Ireland firmly on its side? He was a decent and honourable man who served in the U.D.R.
The I.R.A. says that the Army seeks a military solution. We do not. I have never met a general in the British Army who seeks a military solution. I know that the I.R.A., which calls itself an army, does. It is a tragedy to me, and I hope to all hon. Members, to see a single soldier shot. I hope that the effect of the sympathies expressed today will be to encourage them in carrying out their duties.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

NORTHERN IRELAND

7.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the law as to the legislative powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland under Section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, so far as relates to Her Majesty's Forces and in particular to the conferment of powers, authorities, privileges or immunities on them.
That is the Long Title of the Bill which I ask leave to introduce. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary earlier explained to the House that it was necessary to invite the House to proceed to consider this short Bill forthwith because of the effect of a judgment delivered this morning in the Divisional Court of Northern Ireland on the power of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland. I understand that copies of the draft Bill are available to Members in the Vote Office, if only in a typescript form. In asking for leave, I shall take the opportunity of explaining this short Bill, its effect and the reasons why I seek leave to bring it in at this time.
In August 1971, a Mr. John Hume and others, when part of a crowd, refused to disperse when ordered to do so by an army officer who was exercising powers under Regulation 38 of the regulations made under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, Northern Ireland, 1922. On 8th September last year, Mr. Hume was convicted of the offence and fined £20. Mr. Hume and the others then applied to the Northern Irish High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the conviction. This hearing took place last month

and the judgment was given this morning. The judgment has also been provided in typescript form. I received a copy of that this afternoon. By that judgment, the application of Mr. Hume succeeded and the convictions were quashed.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier today, the Government have decided that it would be indefensible to leave the Army without the essential powers which enable it to discharge the duties for which it was sent to Northern Ireland while the legal processes of any appeal were carried through. As the House will appreciate, any such appeal, allowing, as the House of Lords undoubtedly would, for sufficient time for Mr. Hume and his advisers to select counsel and prepare his argument, would inevitably take some time. Even if it were days or weeks, such a time would be too long in the grave situation which now faces Northern Ireland.
The judgment of the High Court of Northern Ireland turns upon the interpretation of Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920. It is necessarily a technical and narrow point of law, and it is strictly a point of law. But it goes contrary to what was previously thought to have been the law and what had previously been held by the English courts. It affects solely the exercise of powers under the Special Powers Act by the military. It does not affect the powers of police officers or constables.
The principal Act, establishing the Parliament and the executive authority in Northern Ireland, is, of course, the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, under Section 4(1) of which, the Northern Ireland Parliament
shall … have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of … Northern Ireland",
except that it
shall not have power to make laws in respect of
certain tabulated matters. It is on the true legal construction of the words "in respect of" that it appears that the court in Northern Ireland differed from the hitherto only known judgment, of a judge of the High Court in England.
One of the matters on which the Northern Ireland Parliament was not permitted by the 1920 Act to legislate was


in respect of the Navy, the Army, the Air Force or the defence of the Realm. In considering a similar change in the position of the military and their powers under the Special Powers Act, in September, 1971, Mr. Justice Ackner in the High Court in England held that the Special Powers Act was not a law in respect of any military matter, that it was a law for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland, that the legislation made under it was not ultra vires, and accordingly, that the military had been validly given the powers to do acts under the Special Powers Act.
It is with that interpretation of the law that the Divisional Court of Northern Ireland now differs. It has in effect declared that, so far as these Regulations purport to give power to Her Majesty's Forces on duty to exercise powers, such as the powers of search and arrest, those powers are ultra vires and therefore unlawful. Although the case of Mr. Hume concerns only Regulation—

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Do Her Majesty's Forces include the Ulster Defence Regiment?

The Attorney-General: Yes, they do. The Ulster Defence Regiment is a part of Her Majesty's Forces. The Royal Ulster Constabulary is of course the constabulary concerned.
Although the case of Mr. Hume concerned only Regulation 38, the grounds for the judgment necessarily impugn the lawfulness of many vital actions which are being taken and. in nearly three years, have been taken by the Army in carrying out its rôle in Northern Ireland.
Without its ability to carry out such tasks, especially the search for arms and ammunition, arrest, and the stopping and searching of vehicles, the Army's operations in Northern Ireland would be very severely limited and restricted only to the common law powers such as can be exercised by any citizen. The situation in Northern Ireland would be gravely affected and the danger to citizens there inevitably increased. This is the consideration which prompts the Government to ask Parliament to pass this legislation without delay.
The purposes for which Her Majesty's Forces were first sent to Northern Ireland by the previous Government necessarily

involved the exercise of powers involving searching, stopping of vehicles, arrest and dispersement of crowds—which powers are greater than can be exercised by the Army under common law when acting in aid of the civil power. That such extra powers were necessary was readily acknowledged by the Leader of the Opposition today and by Ministers of the previous Government who sent the Army to Northern Ireland in 1969.
As the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), who is present, said in November 1969, when he was Under-Secretary of State for Defence:
The powers conferred upon members of the armed forces on duty by regulations made under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Acts include those of stopping and searching persons and vehicles, entering and searching premises, requiring persons to answer questions, and arresting persons without warrant. The regular exercise of these powers has been essential for the conduct of peacekeeping operations by the Armed Forces.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c 158.]
Similarly, the then Minister of State for the Home Office, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) on 25th November, 1969, said:
The actions of the Army … are mainly conducted under the Special Powers regulations.
The hon. Lady also said:
The Army is operating under the Special Powers Act. This is what it is using, for example, to investigate trucks, and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1969; Vol 792, c. 336, 340.]
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who was then the Minister of Defence for Administration, on 1st December, 1969, speaking of the Ulster Defence Regiment, said:
This is exactly the sort of task which the Army is at present carrying out. It is exactly the sort of task which the new regiment should carry out.… We must rely on those parts of the Special Powers Act which make it possible for us to go on doing the job which is vitally necessary in the interests of the community as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 211–2.]
The Northern Irish legislation which was referred to by those then Ministers, the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, Northern Ireland, 1922, is the legislation under which the special powers were given. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party this


afternoon raised a question, but that is an Act of the Northern Irish Parliament, and its validity is not now in question, because by Section 1 of that Act power was given to the Minister for Home Affairs of Northern Ireland to take all such steps and issue all such orders as may be necessary for preserving the peace and maintaining order, according to and in the execution of the Act and the regulations, and by Section 1 of that Act the Minister had power to make regulations for the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order which may be varied or revoked, and the regulations are contained in Schedule 1. From time to time over the past 50 years they have been varied, revoked, or reintroduced.
The principal regulations express to give powers to a police officer or constable or to a member of any of Her Majesty's Forces on duty. This is the power which is now impugned. Those powers, exercised as they have been by the troops since 1969, have in the main been in existence for many years prior to 1969. The ones prinicipally used by the Defence Forces in Northern Ireland are as follows.
Regulation 4 gives power to enter and search a house, vehicle, vessel or other premises on suspicion that it is being used for a purpose prejudicial to the peace or order. That was a power given to Her Majesty's Forces in 1957.
Regulation 5 is a power to stop any vehicle on a public road and, on suspicion that it is being used for any purpose prejudicial to the peace or order or other lawful purpose, to search and seize the vehicle or anything found in it. That power was given in 1957.
Regulation 6 is the power to stop and search any person on suspicion that he is carrying any firearm, ammunition, explosive, or any article or document prejudicial to the peace. That was a regulation given in 1957.
Regulation 11 gave power to arrest without warning a person suspected of acting, or having acted or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the peace or order, or of being in possession of any article or document for any purpose prejudicial to peace or order. That was a regulation made in 1956, and it includes a power for any member of Her Majesty's Forces on duty.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I apologise if I have failed to catch what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. I was trying to follow his argument. Would he say to whom those specific regulations were given, and by whom?

The Attorney-General: These were regulations made under the Special Powers Act by the Northern Ireland Government. They were regulations which gave powers to a police officer or constable, and from the dates I have mentioned, to any member of Her Majesty's Forces on duty—1957, 1954, and so on.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would the Attorney-General confirm that the last power to which he referred, the power of arrest, is the power under which people then received detention orders, and then received internment orders, and the power also under which the Minister for Home Affairs may order a person to be taken from one place to another and to be put in the custody of a third party?

The Attorney-General: This is the power under Regulation 11, which has been in existence for many years and which gave powers to the Army in 1956. The hon. Gentleman is correct that that was the power which was used to effect arrest whether by the Army or by the constabulary.
Regulation 38 is the regulation pertinent in this particular case. It provides power to require an assembly of three or more persons to disperse if it is suspected that the assembly may lead to a breach of the peace. This regulation was made in 1966 in respect of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It was extended to any officer of Her Majesty's Forces on duty by regulation dated 7th August, 1970.
Regulation 7 first came into effect in 1956. That is the regulation which makes it an offence to fail to stop or to answer questions.
I have recited those so that the House should be clear as to what are the regulations and what are the powers which the Army has been exercising, and under what authority. As I have said, prior to the present judgment, the vires of the regulations empowering the Army to


exercise such powers has been examined by a judge of the High Court in this country, Mr. Justice Ackner. On the application in the case of Keenan and McElduff for a writ of habeas corpus in the courts of this country, Mr. Justice Ackner held that the regulation in question was not ultra vires and that power under such regulations could be exercised by Her Majesty's Forces and could be applied to Her Majesty's Army. That case went to the Court of Appeal in London but was disposed of on a preliminary point of jurisdiction. The decision of Mr. Justice Ackner on the point of vires was referred to by the Court of Appeal in their judgment. So until today the lawfulness of the Army's activities, unquestioned by either Government since 1969, had been upheld by a judge of the English High Court, and now, by the present judgment of the Northern Irish Divisional Count, such activities have been declared to be or to have been unlawful.
It is with the knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland that the House, I am sure, understands how imperative it is that the law should be clarified and the Army permitted to continue its thankless and dangerous task in Northern Ireland. It is for this purpose that this short Bill, a draft of which has been placed in the Vote Office, is presented.
The purpose of the Bill is to give statutory authority to what has been called in law the pith and substance principle in relation to legislation directed to the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland which to that end confers powers upon the Armed Forces of the Crown.
Thus Clause 1, the only operative Clause, provides that the limitations imposed by the Act of 1920 in relation to the Armed Forces is not to have effect or to be regarded as ever having had effect so as to preclude all provision relating to the Forces. In other words, some provision relating to the Forces is permissible, provided that the real substance of the legislation in question lies within the powers of the Northern Ireland Government. In its second part, the Clause deals specifically with the particular point at issue in this case by providing that, in particular, the 1920 Act does not and never has prevented powers from being conferred upon Her Majesty's

Forces by or under Northern Ireland legislation in relation to the maintenance of order in Northern Ireland.
The Bill does not affect the position in relation to the convictions in this case. Those convictions have been quashed, and the Bill does nothing to abrogate the order of the Court which quashed them.
The Bill, if it become law, will not affect the consequences of the Hume case. Mr. Hume's conviction and the others will remain quashed and the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland has authorised me to say that, though leave was given to appeal to the House of Lords, if the Bill becomes law he will abandon that appeal. The Bill challenges the law as expressed in the Hume judgment. It means that no one can successfully mount actions for trepans or wrongful arrest or apply for writs of habeas corpus arising out of actions by the Army in the proper execution of their duties under these regulations. It does not, of course, cover any conduct beyond such execution of such duties. It provides for making lawful solely what was always thought to have been lawful, what a judge of the English High Court thought was lawful, namely the exercise of the powers by the Army under the regulations.

Mr. Peter Archer: I realise the need to clarify the Army's powers for the future, but does it not follow from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that this Bill will operate retrospectively to abrogate civil claims for compensation which are already vested in individuals and if so, does he know of any precedent for anything which goes so far?

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member says "already vested in individuals". But they have not been vested until this morning at 12 o'clock in regard to a soldier, acting under these regulations, stopping a vehicle or entering premises in the course of searching for ammunition. To clarify this I should say that the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is willing that I should give an undertaking to the House that any prosecution now pending, which would fail if today's Judgment stood, will be abandoned or stopped and no new prosecution of that kind will be initiated in relation to the past.
This does not affect charges brought or proceedings pending under any other Statute or any offence against other provisions of the criminal law. For example, where a vehicle has been stopped and explosives discovered those proceedings at criminal law will, of course, proceed. But broadly speaking no prosecutions for offences under the Special Powers Act, where the actual offence solely consists of some failure to obey an order or requirement of the military—

Mr. Stanley Orme: I understand that the ruling would not cover the cases the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. But would it cover, for instance, the demonstration in Newry and any other demonstrations which have recently taken place?

The Attorney-General: I am instructed that the Newry demonstration does not concern the military's powers under the Special Powers Act. Any offence would be a breach of the Public Order Act and that would not be affected by this judgment.
The Leader of the Opposition asked about the Downing Street Declaration and it is right that I should remind the House of it. In the communiqué of 19th August, 1969, it was agreed that the General Officer Commanding should assume overall responsibility for security operations but that for normal police duties outside security matters the Royal Ulster Constabulary remained answerable to the Inspector-General who is responsible to the Ulster Government. But shortly thereafter the Chief Constable was made responsible for the co-ordination of the tasking of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in security operations. This restored the independence of the police in operational matters. None of this affects or is affected by the legal provisions of the Bill. I have explained why the Bill is necessary, its provisions and that it is a technical legal matter on a narrow legal point. As to its urgency I remind the House that it is in the context of the situation in Northern Ireland, the daily use of firearms and explosives, the constant death and injury, and I seek leave accordingly to bring in the Bill.

7.26 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: So that we may understand the procedure,

are we now to discuss this matter as though we were dealing with the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Yes. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman's idea is that we should have our general debate on the question that he be given leave to bring in his Bill and that perhaps the House might, in its wisdom, and bearing in mind that another place is having to wait for us to conclude our proceedings here, be content to let the Second Reading go in a reasonable manner.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am grateful to you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Speaking for myself, and I suspect for my right hon. and hon. Friends, that would seem to be an agreeable course to follow.
I must begin by emphasising that while we on this side of the House appreciate the extraordinary emergency features of the situation in which we now find ourselves, I must emphasise the wholly exceptional nature, as the Home Secretary conceded this afternoon, of the proceedings upon which we are now engaged. The House is being asked to deal with what is no doubt an important Bill, first without notice that the matter was going to arise tonight—and no one can blame the Government for that. But we are doing so without the full opportunity of even reading the judgment which has given rise to the trouble we are having to deal with, and without a proper opportunity to consider all that is involved in the Bill. We are having to do it within the space of a few hours in a debate starting at 7 p.m. I want, therefore, to repeat what has been said already: that this is a wholly exceptional situation and a wholly exceptional procedure, justified only by the situation in which our troops find themselves tonight in Northern Ireland.
It is because of their dangerous situation that we on this side think it right to pass this Bill which seeks to be a validating Bill. For, if tonight, for instance, our soldiers may have to stop a vehicle which they may think, or have reasonable grounds for thinking, is carrying arms and explosives, and may consider it right to stop it to save lives and damage, unless we pass an effective Measure to put the situation right a question is raised over the exercise of


their power to stop such a vehicle. Clearly, this puts our troops into an intolerable position. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this could well encourage certain people to intensify the killings and the violence tonight and until the situation is remedied. It is clearly not right that our soldiers should be put at risk because of political decisions taken in this House. On this side we agree that something needs to be done.
It is right, nevertheless, that, despite the emergency, the effect and implications of the Bill should be carefully studied. In a moment or two I must ask the Attorney-General whether he thinks the terms of the Bill are effective to achieve the purpose we all seek.
As I understand it, the basic legal authority for the use of troops to do most of the things that they have been doing in Northern Ireland derives from two rules. First, a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the prevention of crime. This proposition was given statutory form in Northern Ireland in the Criminal Law Act, 1967, following Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act of the United Kingdom of the same year.
The second rule is that under common law it is the duty of every person to come to the assistance of the civil authorities to maintain law and order if called upon to do so. Military personnel are under no higher or lower obligation than any other citizen in these respects. The significance of their use is their greater power. When the military is employed in aid of the civil power, it is the responsibility of the commander of the forces employed to decide what force is necessary to deal with the situation. He would be legally liable—and so would the troops under his command in certain circumstances—if he or they used excessive force, but he would be failing in his duty if he used inadequate force.
As I understand it, none of those propositions will be affected by the terms of the Bill. So the exercise of powers by the military outside the ambit of the Special Powers Act and the regulations passed thereunder is not in question and this is not affected by the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to validate the use by the troops of the additional powers over and above those common law powers I have mentioned, additional

powers which have been given to the troops, or it was thought had been given to them by Northern Ireland parliamentary and ministerial procedures, by the Special Powers Act and regulations issued under it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has specified the five regulations that are relevant to our consideration. They sought to confer on the military authorities concerned similar powers in regard to the matters in question as are conferred on the Northern Ireland police. Successive Governments have thought there could be no legal doubt that in using its powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland the Northern Ireland Parliament could confer on members of Her Majesty's Forces powers similar to those conferred on the police.
Perhaps I should emphasise that in no instance has there been any attempt to confer on the military greater powers for the preservation of peace, order and good government than have been conferred on the police in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Bill will not affect that state of affairs. However, as we have learned today, the Divisional Court of Northern Ireland has construed Section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, in a way which within Northern Ireland will invalidate those regulations, or parts of them—in the immediate case, Regulation 38—which conferred powers on an officer and in other regulations on other ranks as well. This differs from the construction of the Section less than a year ago by a High Court judge in London.
Whatever the correct construction in law, the matter cannot rest where it is. In view of the situation now prevailing in Northern Ireland, it is right in the view of those of us on this side of the House that, at any rate in the immediate situation, the powers given to the military under the Special Powers Act and regulations should be validly available to them and validly exercisable by them.
But I regret to have to ask with some concern whether the Bill is effective to achieve the purpose the Government and the Attorney-General have in mind. Clause 1 states:
The limitations imposed by paragraph (3) of section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 on the powers of the Parliament of


Northern Ireland to make laws shall not have effect, and shall be deemed never to have had effect, to preclude the inclusion in laws made by that Parliament for the peace, order or good government of Northern Ireland of all provision relating to members of Her Majesty's forces …
So we are dealing, in the Clause, with law made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland:
for the peace, order or good government of Northern Ireland relating to members of Her Majesty's forces".
Later in the Clause we see a reference to
any such law",
presumably referring back to a law
relating to members of Her Majesty's forces.
When we examine the regulation in immediate question, Regulation 38, we see first that it is made by the Minister of Home Affairs. One would not think that the regulation as such is aptly described as a law made by the Northern Ireland Parliament. Presumably, those words refer to an Act of that Parliament. Regulation 38 is described as follows:
Regulations made by the Minister of Home Affairs under Section 1, subsection 3, of the Special Powers Act.
Therefore, one would look to that Section to see whether it is
a provision of an Act relating to members of Her Majesty's forces".
Most unhappily, there is no reference in
that Section to its being a provision relating to members of Her Majesty's Forces. The Section says:
The Minister of Home Affairs shall have power to make regulations—
(a) for making further provision for the preservation of the peace and maintenance of order, and
(b) for varying or revoking any provision of the regulations; and any regulations made as aforesaid shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have effect and be enforced in like manner as regulations contained in the Schedule to this Act."
It is true that in the Act there is a reference in Section 7 to a limited provision for powers
to be exercised by His Majesty's forces
as they then were. It says:
Any person authorised by the civil authority, or any police constable, or any member of any of His Majesty's forces on duty may, where it is necessary for the purpose of effecting an arrest …

exercise the same powers as a policeman. But it is not under that Section that Regulation 38 was made.
In the speed with which we have had to consider these matters, I have not obtained the other regulations, unfortunately. I do not know under what statutory authority they were made, but no doubt right hon. and learned Gentlemen will enlighten us on that. It may be that this is the only case where a regulation purports to have been made under a Section of the Special Powers Act which, most unhappily, is not caught by the language of Clause 1. I invite the Attorney-General to give the most anxious thought to this. I say that in no patronising sense but because this is a matter we all want to get right.
The Attorney-General said that the aim of the Bill was to clarify the law. Heaven knows, let us do it effectively this time and not find ourselves next week in this kind of dilemma again. It may be that there is an answer to this point. It may be that it should be dealt with by Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I told the House that the regulations were contained in Schedule 1 of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland), 1922. They are regulations for peace, order or good government of Northern Ireland. Therefore, they are part of the statute which was enacted by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. It is only that part of that statute which referred to the military which was impugned by the Divisional Court. It is that part of the statute which the Bill is designed to correct.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I have not got the whole of it before me. Is the Attorney-General saying that all five regulations with which we are concerned are expressly referred to in the schedule to the Special Powers Act?

The Attorney-General: All the regulations are contained in the Schedule. The regulations to which I particularly drew the attention of the House are those which have been used by the Army in Northern Ireland since 1969. I particularly draw to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention the wording of the Bill
the conferment on them by, under or in pursuance of any such law".

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am still troubled about this matter. Clause 1 confines and limits the laws which are relevant to this operation to laws made by the Northern Ireland Parliament relating to members of Her Majesty's Forces. Regulation 38, which I see now is scheduled to the Special Powers Act, clearly makes reference to members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but, as I see it, it makes no reference to the military at all.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he is on a very important point. I have just noticed that in its judgment the Divisional Court in Northern Ireland concluded that Regulation 38(1) is a law "in respect of" that subject matter being the subject matter in Section 4(1)(iii) of the Act. The court had the opportunity of going into the matter in far greater detail than we have had and that was the conclusion which it reached. I have not yet had an opportunity of considering all the grounds on which that conclusion was reached, but that is the conclusion which the court reached.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It was that Section that the court was construing, and it is the court's construction of it which has led to the difficulty in which we now find ourselves.
There it is. It may be that others in the House will have given as much thought to this matter as we have been able to apply to it in the short time available and that we shall get further guidance. At the moment, I am by no means satisfied that Clause 1 is competent to validate the position of the exercise by the Armed Forces of their powers under the Northern Ireland legislation.
I turn now to a further matter about which, happily, we have had some reassurance from the Attorney-General. As has been pointed out, an anxious feature of the Bill is its retrospective effect. In my view, it would be perfectly reasonable—indeed, it is the purpose of our endeavours—to make use of the provisions of the Bill to indemnify members of Her Majesty's Forces in respect of acts which, but for the Bill, would, under the ruling of the Divisional Court, be illegal. It is right that they should

be indemnified. It would be quite wrong, however, to make use of the Bill retrospectively to impose criminality now, or hereafter, upon the acts of persons in Northern Ireland and which would be legal upon the Divisional Court's ruling.
It is indeed gratifying that we have had an assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland has given a positive undertaking to approach these matters in the way which I have submitted is just and fair.
However, I am not happy about the answer which the Attorney-General gave, in so far as he gave it—I do not mean that in any unkind sense; perhaps the matter had been overlooked—to the question put to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) regarding outstanding civil claims. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us a little about that? Will the Bill shut out those who, but for the Bill, would have pressed forward with civil claims which have been initiated and might now be sought to be frustrated by reason of the terms of the Bill?
I recall getting into terrible trouble in this House, when I was sitting in the Attorney-General's place, over the Burmah Oil Bill a long time ago. I still have the scars in my mind. While I agree that in this Bill we are not setting aside the judgment of a court—that was the point of attack in the Burmah Oil case—nevertheless, the House should be reassured in this context.
We are concerned with grave matters concerning our troops across the water. Indeed, the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland may also be affected. The Bill raises other questions of a more general character than those I have raised on the Bill itself. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, our approval of a measure to clarify the position of the troops as of now is without prejudice to the demand which has been made for early consideration by Parliament of the whole conditions under which our troops are presently operating in Northern Ireland, of the whole operation of detention and of the whole question where responsibility for the security arrangements ought finally and absolutely to lie. These are matters which the Leader of the House


indicated we shall be given an early opportunity of discussing, as discuss them we want to do.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I should like to start by echoing what the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said: namely, that since the troops are in Northern Ireland as a result of a political decision of this House, they are entitled to all the protection and immunity to which they are reasonably entitled under the law. I cannot speak for the whole House, but certainly that is the view of my hon. Friends and, I suspect, of the vast majority of this House.
We should realise that this is not a simple matter. Furthermore, it is a matter in which we are being asked to pass retrospective legislation.
I wish to make two main points. First, I assert that, under the existing law of the land, Her Majesty's Forces are entitled to an immunity whether or not the Bill is passed. I shall say why later.
Secondly, I believe that the House has to consider what powers are in fact being bestowed upon Stormont. In my view, they are certainly greater powers than were intended under the 1920 Act, and they are certainly greater powers than the Stormont Parliament thought they had when they passed the Special Powers Act, 1922.
In that situation, whilst we do not, I suggest—certainly it is not my intention—want to go into the political questions, it is a fair point to say that if this House, in the very delicate sphere of security of the Armed Forces of the Crown, is seen to be bestowing greater powers on Stormont than this House intended in 1920, and than Stormont, on the interpretation of the 1922 Act, thought it had, whilst we in this House may not think it is of greate political significance, there will be many outside who would disagree.
The Home Secretary in his statement said—and I hope I paraphase fairly; if not, I hope he will correct me—that we needed to empower Her Majesty's Forces, inter alia, to call upon an assembly to disperse, and to stop and search people or vehicles suspected of carrying firearms or explosives, and to make other regulations not specified. We are to assume that this Bill remedies that deficiency.
The right to use special powers was given legislative effect in the Northern Ireland Parliament by the Special Powers Act, 1922, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General rightly said. The details relating to such powers are contained in the Schedule which is attached to that Act and which therefore forms a part of it, and the general position relating to the Armed Forces is specifically contained in Regulation 35, under the 1922 Act, which says:
These Regulations shall not, save as therein expressly provided, be construed as applying to members of His Majesty's Forces when acting within the scope of their duties
This, if I may repeat, is what the Stormont Parliament thought was the extent of the powers which it could operate under the Special Powers Act, bearing in mind the matters reserved to the Westminster Parliament and the matters delegated to Stormont under the 1920 Act.
Power to stop, search and seize a vehicle or anything found therein is expressly referred to in Regulation 21 under the Special Powers Act. I think it is of importance that that Regulation only—and I repeat only—confers that power on a police officer or a constable. No reference is made to Her Majesty's Forces. I would have thought on the interpretation of Statutes that the inclusion expressly of one category by implication excludes all others. Therefore, I think it is a fair assertion that the 1922 Act never purported or granted expressly or by implication such powers to Her Majesty's Forces at the gift—if I may use a neutral term—of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
Now the Government, rightly worried by the fact that Her Majesty's Forces have exercised such powers, and the Northern Ireland judgment has given its opinion that they are not so entitled, introduce a Bill which purports to remedy that defect. The basis of the court's decision is that Regulation 38, passed in 1970 in a statutory instrument, offends against the expressly reserved category to be found in Section 4(1)(3) of the 1920 Act. Whilst I have not seen the 1957 Regulations to which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General referred, I would assume that, on the basis of that judgment, the view would be similarly taken that the Northern Ireland Parliament has passed a whole series


of regulations giving to the troops powers which are ultra vires the Special Powers Act, 1922. Therefore, what is happening on this occasion is that the Government are expressly interpreting or reinterpreting Section 4(1)(3) of the 1920 Act. In my submission, whilst I entirely accept that the object of this Bill is to give protection and rights and authority and immunities to the troops, we are doing so by a Bill which confers upon the Northern Ireland Parliament powers which this House never intended it to have, powers which Stormont—and on the construction of the Special Powers Act, 1922, never thought it had—in a situation in which powers have been accorded by a series of statutory instruments, which, in the view of its own courts, are ultra vires that Act.
Therefore, I very much wonder whether this Bill in effect gives those powers, unless the Attorney-General can tell us that by reinterpretation, for that is what it is—it is almost a declaration and interpretation of the 1920 Act—this Bill in effect overrides the Northern Ireland Act, 1922, by expressly reversing Regulation 35 and the Schedule, which expressly precluded them from giving orders to the Armed Forces. I am not certain, and I ask for guidance from the Attorney-General. If he is saying that all this Parliament has to do is to pass an Act which, if it happens to conflict with a Northern Ireland enactment, then it automatically prevails; if that is the position, then the whole of the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland has now been radically altered without reference to it being made in the Schedule to the Bill. That may be altered later and altered in a way which gives power to Northern Ireland, which this Parliament had not intended. Therefore I ask whether we are achieving a worthy objective and are indirectly bringing about a political situation which some of us would greatly regret.
The reason why I say that I believe that the Forces of the Crown have immunity in any event is the existence of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. As the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will know, Section 53 of that Act expressly provided that its application could be extended to Northern Ireland, and by Statutory Instrument No. 1836 of

1949, the Act could apply in the courts of Northern Ireland. Section 11(1) says:
Nothing in Part I of this Act shall extinguish or abridge any powers or authorities which, if this Act had not been passed would have been exercisable by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown, or any powers or authorities conferred on the Crown by any statute, and, in particular, nothing in the said Part I shall extinguish or abridge any powers or authorities exercisable by the Crown, whether in time of peace or of war, for the purpose of the defence of the realm "—
and I repeat those words—
for the purpose of the defence of the realm or of training, or maintaining the efficiency of, any of the armed forces of the Crown.
Subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State may, if satisfied that the act or omission complained of in regard to the Armed Forces of the Crown was necessary for any such purpose as mentioned in the previous subsection, issue a certificate. That is to say, if he were prepared to certify that the acts or omissions were in furtherance of the defence of the realm he could issue a certificate to the effect—
 … that the act or omission was necessary for that purpose; and the certificate shall, in those proceedings, be conclusive as to the matter so certified.
So we already have a complete protection for the Armed Forces of the Crown where they are acting in defence of the realm and the Secretary of State is prepared so to certify. The immediate panic that there will be a series of actions in tort against the Armed Forces of the Crown seems to me, with great respect, to show insufficient appreciation of the weapons which the Government have at their command under the 1947 Act.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Are there not potential difficulties in the criminal field? That would not be protected by the provisions of the Crown Proceedings Act.

Mr. Thorpe: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think he has a point. But we must look at the situation in which a private criminal prosecution can be brought against a member of the Armed Forces of the Crown. Certainly, a public prosecution would be within the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland and the existence of the certificate issued by the Secretary of State would be for him an indication that these matters could not be proceeded with.
I entirely accept that the Government are right to introduce legislation which will have the effect of clarifying the law and giving an immunity to the Forces of the Crown, but I strongly object to the legislation being so framed that its effect will be to give powers to Stormont which were certainly not within the contemplation of this House in 1920, and which were certainly not thought by Stormont to be within its compass in its own legislation in 1922.
That is why, when we have completed Second Reading, my colleagues and I hope that a manuscript Amendment might be accepted, the terms of which would be out of order now but the effect of which would be that the Bill would be subject to affirmative resolution at the end of a year.
I parenthetically make the final point that the complexity of security matters and the division of power between this House and Northern Ireland make it all the more vital, as some of us have demanded, that the control of Her Majesty's United Kingdom Forces should rest exclusively with Her Majesty's United Kingdom Parliament.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Having listened to the legal discourse of three learned gentlemen, I do not want to cross swords on the legal niceties of the Bill.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: There are no niceities; they are all nasties.

Mr. Orme: I will leave that to the lawyers. I am concerned not so much about the legal arguments as about the effect of this legislation on the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. It is now more important than ever that a move towards a political solution of this problem should be made by the Government. All hon. Members want to see the British Army moved out of the position of danger in which they are, and the troops will be moved out of that position of danger only when political initiatives are taken in which the community as a whole can have confidence and which themselves will lessen the tension.
The deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland and the effect of internment have been politically disastrous.

When I referred to this matter earlier this afternoon I found it difficult to differentiate between the offence for which Mr. Hume was charged and of which the Belfast court acquitted him and other illegal acts of violence in Northern Ireland which none of us supports. I know that the Home Secretary and the the Minister of State are aware of our feelings on this matter. We are continually pressing for the defence of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland so that democracy shall not be destroyed. The repercussions of the Bill, justifiable as it may seem to the House, must be weighed most seriously.
I link this with the remarks about Stormont made by the Leader of the Liberal Party. The Bill speaks of the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which are linked to the Special Powers Act which many of my hon. Friends detest. The Special Powers Act has not helped the people of Northern Ireland but has rather contributed to their problems.
The Stormont Government have a record of not recognising the need for political change. If moderate political reforms had been undertaken a few years ago with the whole-hearted support of the Stormont Government, we should not now be in a war situation in Northern Ireland.
It is not always easy politically to make these points, but the more difficult it is the more important it is that my hon. Friends and I should make them. If we do not do so, the time will come when there will be no one left for the Government to negotiate with except the Provisional or Official I.R.A. I do not want that to happen. If they were given confidence in real reforms, the Catholic community would rally to their elected leaders and themselves help to resolve the serious internal security problem.
With this background in mind, I suggest that it will not be sufficient for the Government just to pass this legislation in the hope that everything will go back to normal and that they need do nothing more. There will be political repercussions from this court case, and if the Bill leads to a strengthening of Stormont's powers, the situation will worsen.
Many of my hon. Friends feel that any action of the Northern Ireland Government which affects British troops should


be answerable to an affirmative Resolution of this House. We should not have a situation in which the law of Northern Ireland can be changed without the Westminster Parliament having the final say. Section 75 of the 1920 Act gives the ultimate power to this House. I am convinced that the British people, who well know that 16,000 of our troops are in Northern Ireland, will not be satisfied with the situation that the British Army, whether acting through the Security Committee or in conjunction with the R.U.C., are under the orders imposed by laws passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament. Stormont is now discredited and we have now to rebuild the political situation in Northern Ireland on sound foundations.
Those of us who have taken a stand on the civil liberty aspect of the matter in favour of the minority do not wish to prejudice the majority. We recognise that they too must come round and that, because many of their prejudices and fears are ill-founded, something must be found on which a new structure must be built. This will not be done by wallpapering over the cracks. The tragedy of Northern Ireland since 1969, and even before, is due to the fact that what has been offered has been too little too late.
I appreciate that the Government are seriously considering proposals for reform and I hope that those proposals will be positive. I hope we shall take note of what has happened in the Republic and that we shall take encouragement from what Mr. Lynch and his Government have recently outlined in their statements. There is again hope of achieving some form of settlement. I understand all the difficulties, but it is important to look at the political issues which lie at the root of this matter. This will not be resolved by legal niceties, but by positive political action. There is not much time left and we need urgent action now.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My remarks will be brief, but I wish to make one or two points which I feel are important. I believe that the Government are right to protect the actions of British troops in Northern Ireland and to seek to put forward a measure to legalise their position following the court's decision today. Having

said that, I believe they have gone the wrong way about it and have turned the whole situation upside down. They have sought to legalise the action of British troops in the context of the Northern Ireland legislation when they should have legalised this action in the context of British legislation.
The passage of this legislation will be a blow against law and order. People like Hume, Cooper, Fitt and others went to law to prove that they had an opportunity under the legislation to make their view known. They said "Let us test Stormont and the good faith of the British Government"—and on this occasion they have been proved right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) has attempted to table Questions related to the Government of Ireland Act and has sought to question the legality of the situation. But people like Hume and Cooper went to law and won, but they now find that the loophole is to be closed. Every time they try to play the game constitutionally, the rules are changed. This is the danger of the situation as looked at from the point of view of the minority in Northern Ireland. We in this Parliament seek to defend and protect the rôle of our soldiers, but we must look at this matter from the viewpoint of those who are at the receiving end of this legislation. Those people will say, "The British Parliament are seeking to legislate not only for the past but for the future".
What regulations will the Minister of Home Affairs introduce under the Special Powers Act, and will we be able to challenge those regulations? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has already catalogued the powers contained in the Special Powers Act. I sought in an intervention to show that the Legislature at Westminster would not accept some of those powers. A number of the powers, as has been shown by Professor Paley of Northern Ireland, in terms of detention and holding people without trial, are greater than those exercised by the Smith regime in Southern Rhodesia. This is what we must look at and this is what we are legislating for. This legislation is aimed not only at protecting our troops but at protecting every piece of legislation introduced by the Stormont Government.
Both the present Attorney-General and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), the former Attorney-General, have said that as a result of this morning's decision our troops find themselves in an intolerable situation. That is quite true, but they have been placed in that situation because of the type of legislation produced by Stormont. Despite the happenings of last week, I can almost forgive the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party because of what he has said today since his remarks go to the root of the liberties of this House.

Mr. Ivor Richard: This is an important matter and it is imperative that the House should get it right. The mere fact that Stormont is prepared to grant some kind of legal indemnity to the possible use of British troops in Northern Ireland has nothing whatever to do with the way in which those troops are used, so long as the basic control of those troops rests with the G.O.C. and with this House.

Mr. McNamara: I was just about to come to that point. What has happened under the present Government is that the direction of policy involving British troops appears not to rest with our Ministry of Defence or our Home Office but with those in Stormont Castle. This is one of our biggest fears. Our fear is that there will be an alteration to this piece of legislation and then to some regulation or other, so that suddenly we shall be faced with an horrific exaggeration of the type of police State and society which exists in Northern Ireland under the Special Powers Act. This is the real fear about what will happen. This is why we should be in control of British troops and this is why one Parliament should have control under the regulations if these matters are to be legalised retrospectively as well as for the future.
What my hon. Friends and I will seek to do under Clause 1, on similar lines to those suggested by the Leader of the Liberal Party, is to introduce an Amendment making any powers which become legitimised as a result of this Measure, and any regulations which become legitimised as a result of it, subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of this Parliament. Only in this way can we protect our troops and show that we

are criticising what is happening in Northern Ireland, not the actions of our troops, but the political direction which comes from the Government Front Bench sometimes but most of the time from the Prime Minister's office in Stormont Castle.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I wish to follow hon. Members who have spoken so far from this side of the House. Like everyone who has spoken I do not believe that anyone wishes to oppose this Bill. Nevertheless, there are unusual features in it. I saw the Attorney-General, or it may have been the Home Secretary, shake his head when an hon. Member said that we are giving powers to Stormont by this Bill. I presume that the headshaking was to indicate that we are giving only the powers that we thought Stormont already had. That argument was demolished by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
That is not the sole matter of importance, although it is an interesting argument. What is of real importance is whether we appear to be giving new powers. I am certain that in this country and in Northern Ireland particularly we shall appear to be doing so. If I may stray into the legal minefield which has been set before us by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and the Attorney-General, I wish to put two questions about the Bill. One is similar to a question which was asked by the right hon. Member for Devon, North. Why, since the Bill gives powers which quite literally are said to be
relating to members of Her Majesty's Forces,
is there no time limit?
We hear rumours of political initiatives, and none of us wants to discuss that today for we can discuss it at another time, but surely there is no need for an unlimited provision of this character. The Bill is to deal with a situation which has arisen suddenly. Could we not have had a short Bill which included a time limit? I have drafted an Amendment for the Committee stage suggesting that the Measure should lapse after six months unless it was renewed by a Resolution passed by both Houses. When we were in Government and had a whole Crown Colony in rebellion and a rather more


difficult situation in some ways than this there was a provision in the Southern Rhodesia Act that the regulations made under it had to be renewed every year.
Another thing which I find unusual is why we did not do exactly what we are doing now directly from Westminster. I had always assumed that the troops in Northern Ireland were acting under the ancient prerogative powers of the Crown when the military forces are called upon to support the civil power. What would happen in England or Wales or Scotland if troops had to be used there for the same purpose? I am afraid that in this day and age one cannot say that that possibility is too remote to consider. After all, for this purpose the ancient powers of the Crown are almost as great as those of mediæval monarchy.

Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend is on a crucial point. Ministers opposite will know that when they came to office they found in the Defence Ministry an examination of this point. The Army in Northern Ireland has no greater right under English law than has any other citizen of the realm. If they have to be used in a riot situation in one of our great cities there would be no such thing as an automatic right to indemnity. That is why some kind of indemnifying proposal is needed for the situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. English: I am perfectly well aware of what my hon. and learned Friend has said and if he will allow me I shall develop the point. I was aware that I was on a point of some interest, to say the least.
Apart from using such powers as may be possessed, although I do not want to develop the argument, the Attorney-General will be aware that there are latent powers of the Crown in certain circumstances; and, whatever the Government of Northern Ireland Act did, I understand that it did not deprive Westminster of powers in this field. It may have given powers to the Government in Stormont but in this field it did not deprive the Government at Westminster of power.
An alternative method which frankly I thought the Home Secretary was suggesting when he made his statement this afternoon would have been to take the

regulations which are now in some doubt from the Special Powers Act and re-enact them here this evening. Oddly enough, this is what I believe most of us who heard the Home Secretary this afternoon thought that he was suggesting. It was thought that this Parliament could take the relevant half dozen Sections of the Special Powers Act or Regulations and thus re-enact for the purposes of the Armed Forces the special powers and regulations which for example apply to constables in Northern Ireland. We are very interested to know why exactly that is not being done. It would have exactly the same effect as this Bill will have in relation to the Armed Forces, and it would be something which this Parliament has done and could undo.
I come back to the question of why there is no time limit in the Bill. Presumably if one can grant powers or immunities to certain types of Her Majesty's Forces or say that the laws shall not preclude Her Majesty's Forces from operating and if one grants powers to constables one grants them to the Armed Forces, presumably one can attach such limitations as one cares to have. Presumably one could limit actions in certain circumstances, actions which the troops may take. They are still under our orders, but they might not be immune if Stormont objected.
Another point, again in connection with the perpetuity of this enactment, is that it does not solely relate to the existing situation. This is where I challenge the Attorney-General, who says that we are not doing anything new, but are merely putting back what was the situation yesterday. Surely it is within the power of Stormont, once this Bill is passed, to pass some new regulation which does not now exist under the Special Powers Act and give another set of rights or immunities to both its police constables and our Armed Forces. In that respect, this Bill goes further than merely putting the law back where it was yesterday, does not it?
I come finally to the point mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). I shall not go into the details, but, dealing with another subject last night, I mentioned this peculiar quality of English law that not only can the institutions of


the State enforce the law against individuals; individuals can go to the courts and enforce their rights under the law. This is a very good example, because they can do that even if it is, as it is in this case, against military servants of the Crown. Yet, when the Home Secretary made his statement today and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pointed out that this would not be possible in the case of Community law, my hon. and learned Friend was laughed at by hon. Members opposite. But it is the exact opposite to the principles, of what is known as public law in the Roman law system. Not even in the case of a civil servant of the Community acting illegally would one be able, without the permission of his masters, the Community institutions, to bring an action against him under the Community law, because it includes the Roman public law provisions.
Last night, the Solicitor-General spoke to an Amendment which discussed this very point. Unfortunately, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not have the courtesy to deal with the point which, as sometimes happens, by an accident of time, has been illustrated in its opposite English quality the day after. I hope that the Attorney-General will instruct his learned junior to reply to that basic point at a later stage of another Bill.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I do not like the idea of rushed legislation, and I am sure that my distaste is shared by other hon. Members. It is only because of the urgency of the military situation in Northern Ireland that one even contemplates the proposal to put through a Bill in one day following a judgment which apparently has changed people's interpretation of the law. Inevitably, in such rush, there is the possibility of error.
Without going into the matter in any detail—because the House would find it tedious for the legal argument to be pursued—I agree with the interpretation of the Bill expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), and I do not think that it is met by the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), because that

part of this morning's judgment was dealing with another aspect of the matter.
I am interested in the political consequences of this legislation. The Government are saying that the position should be as it was thought to be yesterday. On that, there is a difference between the parties. It has been the policy of the Labour Party for some time that the responsibility for security in Northern Ireland should be vested in this House, not only that orders about security should be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government but that the legislation empowering the Forces to implement those orders should be the responsibility of this Parliament and not of Stormont, and that a change of venue for deciding the powers of the Forces would have an enormous salutary effect upon people in Northern Ireland.
The argument has been pursued at length in numerous debates, and I shall not take it any further. What the Government are doing is saying that they will continue with the existing policy of assigning to Stormont the right to decide the powers of the Forces to implement security. On that there is a substantial political cleavage between the two sides of the House. I do not think it should simply be pushed through in emergency legislation. Time should have been taken to consider the matter. After all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointed out, there are important effects that will follow in the psychology of the people, who will regard themselves as discriminated against in Northern Ireland if we push through this overturning of a Northern Irish judgment in one day. It is bound to have some effect on John Hume and upon those who think like him. They will think that the policy of pursuing peacefully redress through the courts has somehow been frustrated by the Westminster Parliament; so on that ground alone it would have been wise, in my view, for the Government to have taken time to consider what their reaction to this should have been.
In the meantime, the Forces have to maintain law and order and to be protected aginst any kind of civil suit for redress against them personally. We could have quickly passed indemnity legislation covering them for acts in the past and


until new amending legislation was considered. This was the moment when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might have considered this whole problem of who ought to be responsible for security in Northern Ireland, and ought to have come forward with more carefully considered legislation. That, inevitably, would have taken time, though I am bound to say that since the issue was raised by Mr. Justice Ackner last year and was raised again in Northern Ireland some time ago, it is surprising, to say the least, that there was no provision available in Whitehall for what would happen if the judgment went against the Government.
After all, this is a hastily constructed piece of legislation, and surely it would have been possible to have considered in greater depth what would be the effect if the judgment went against the Government.
I am concerned with rather more than merely the form of the legislation. I suggest we should have taken time to consider it. That may be met by the Amendment which has been suggested by the Liberal Party and some of my hon. Friends. I had an Amendment to rather different effect but all the Amendments seek to make the point that this should be legislation for only a short period, to give us time to take stock and consider.
We have, after all, reached a watershed. The Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has decided that in many respects troops have been acting illegally. It is not only Regulation 38 that was made under the Special Powers Act. In implementing the policy of internment under the Public Order Act they have been acting illegally in so far as they have been pursuing the work of the Constabulary as members of the Armed Forces; because the Northern Ireland Government had no power to ask the Armed Forces to implement this particular provision of Northern Ireland legislation. Therefore, in a much wider context than Regulation 38 the troops have been acting illegally.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the legality of interrogation in depth may also have been in question?

Mr. Lyon: On that matter the hon. Gentleman draws me into a chestnut

very much of own taste, because I do not believe that interrogation in depth is legal either under this legislation or under any existing legislation. In my view, interrogation in depth has no legal validity whatsoever and I hope that the all-party committee, when it reports, says just that and that we then have to consider again the whole question of interrogation in depth. I say that not only for Northern Ireland but because I dislike the idea of interrogation in depth wherever it takes place; and I hope that we in this country will consider whether it is necessary and, if so, under what conditions it ought to be conducted.
Having widened this aspect of interrogation in depth, the whole principle applies; when are the troops acting validly in exercising police operations in relation to situations of disorder in the civil community? My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no legal justification in English law for troops to have such powers unless they are exercised under a State of Emergency which is called into being by an order of this House.
In that respect there is need for permanent legislation to consider what the powers of troops should be in situations of civil commotion and disorder. That applies not only to Northern Ireland but to this country. Once again we should take time to consider the general problem, which is not peculiar to Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary might very well have produced a different type of Bill, limited to covering the immediate repercussions of the judgment, and should then have reconsidered the whole question of what the powers of troops ought to be in Northern Ireland and this country.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I had not intended to intervene until the Attorney-General referred to me in the course of his remarks and until I heard some remarks by some of my hon. Friends. This Bill is basically about a simple issue. It is in effect indemnifying legislation although it is not quite expressed in that way. What it is doing, retrospectively, is attempting to remove a statutory bar which existed on the power of the Northern Ireland Government to legislate in respect of British Forces. I believe that the bar as such is absolutely right.
The first question we have to ask is: do we need to indemnify troops on active service in Northern Ireland? Flowing from that, if we do need to indemnify them in some way because of certain things that they are doing in Northern Ireland, is this Bill the right way to do it? I think that I may draw issue with some of my hon. Friends on the first point. It is clear to me in law, in common sense and in justice to the ordinary soldier, that there has to be some form of legislation indemnifying him against some of the ordinary legal consequences of what he is obliged by his service in the Army to do in Northern Ireland.
When the Army first went into Northern Ireland it went in on the basis of its common law duty to go to the aid of a civil power and as such had certain limited rights. For example, it could not in pursuance of that duty stop a motor car or conduct a search; it could not under those powers—which are no different from the powers which any of us has—go into a house where it thought there might be ammunition or explosives. It could not have been permitted to release C.S. gas in the streets to disperse a crowd except In limited circumstances and it could certainly not have fired rubber bullets. If firearms had been use by a soldier in Northern Ireland, then under the common law, irrespective of whether he could justify the action, he would have been accountable. The ordinary soldier was, under the common law, placed in an utterly intolerable and impossible position.
If he were given a lawful order by a commanding officer to use C.S. gas or some degree of force, or firearms, and he obeyed, he was then accountable in the ordinary civil courts, just as if he had been a private citizen. If he disobeyed his officer's order he would have been court-martialled. One of the things that I was concerned about at the Ministry of Defence was to clarify the legal position of the soldier in the United Kingdom when on active service. There is great force in what my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) says about the need for clarification.
It may be that in certain circumstances troops would have to be used for riot situations on this side of the St. George's Channel. I hope it never comes to that, but if one considers the industrial history

of the past three to four weeks it is not inconceivable that at some stage hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might have had to consider using the British Army, which might have come into conflict with some of the people then on strike. In that situation it would have been crucial for the legal position of the soldier to have been clarified. At the moment English law is deficient in this respect, and whatever comes out of this mix-up which we are trying to rectify this evening, someone in a senior position on the Front Bench should take the rectification of this anomaly very definitely in hand.
I therefore conclude that as far as Northern Ireland is concerned British Forces need some form of legal indemnity for the acts they are bound to have to carry out as part of the duties they are performing there. The sole question for me tonight is whether this Bill is the way to do it. The one advantage of this Bill is speed; it looks like the easy way of doing it. To look at the massive regulations already made under the Special Powers Act and retrospectively, so to speak, remove the restriction on their applying to British Forces would seem to be a quick way of doing it. I must say this to the Front Bench, however: I think there is force in some of the points made from the benches behind me, and indeed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. I think it very important that if we are to indemnify the troops in Ireland in this way the Government should emphasise, and re-emphasise, and go on emphasising, that the control for security matters on the use of British Forces rests with the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, and ultimately, therefore, with this House of Commons. I do not think they will be wholly successful in emphasising this in Northern Ireland; there is force in what some of my hon. Friends have said, that the effect of this legislation will be misunderstood in Ireland, but I think it is terribly important that they should make the attempt.
I hope, too, that whoever is winding up this debate will try to tell us why the Government have chosen to perform this act of indemnity in this particular way. Why could it not have been done by means of a more general legislative instrument? Why during the past 20


months could not appropriate consideration have been given to the legal position of the soldier so that this could have been properly clarified, so that he would have been better protected? On this particular aspect of the matter we are no further forward now than we were over 20 months ago when, in fact, I initiated this very investigation and this important matter in the Ministry of Defence. It is disappointing that nothing has been done about it for the past 20 months and one thing that comes out of the confusion over this matter is that that, at any rate, will be put right.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I do not wish to detain the House long but I think it right that there should be a contribution from one on this side of the House who represents a Northern Ireland constituency. The House well knows that the Bill cannot be allowed to pass through the House without a very sincere tribute being paid to the work which has been done by the Army in Northern Ireland. Ever since we introduced the reform programme in Northern Ireland, disarmed our police following the Hunt Committee's Report and disbanded the B Specials we have been very much at the mercy of the terrorists. Within the past 24 hours we have seen in this country just how vicious their attacks on unarmed civilians can be.
The Army has done a marvellous job. In the course of 1971 they uncovered some 26 machine guns, 244 rifles, 92 shotguns, 244 pistols, revolvers and other weapons and over 156,000 rounds of ammunition, which an unarmed police force could never have done. Therefore, the need for the Bill speaks for itself, particularly when one remembers how these explosives can be used, as they were at Aldershot yesterday.
I should like my right hon. Friend to say something to reassure the public in Northern Ireland that, in spite of this decision of the Divisional Court and the consequential doubt as to the state of the law, the Army will continue—and I hope are even continuing at the moment—to exercise all the power that they have exercised hitherto to stop cars which are acting suspiciously or which they have grounds to suspect may contain terrorists or gelignite, and to arrest and to

search houses either on their own initiative or where the R.U.C. have grounds for suspicion.
I take issue with what the hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said. The prime need in Northern Ireland must be to restore law and order. We have seen an absolutely shocking devastation. In the past two and a half years, 252 people have been killed in Northern Ireland—51 soldiers, 18 policemen, 7 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and 176 civilians. Over 2,500 have been injured.

Mr. McNamara: Would the hon. Member accept that everyone wants to see law and order restored in Northern Ireland, but that it depends on how one defines the words "law", "order" and "justice"? As he is giving his interesting statistics, would he give the numbers, before the introduction of internment and those after, of deaths, injuries, woundings and so on?

Mr. McMaster: I should be glad to try to do so in a moment, within the limits of this debate.
I was saying that over 250 people have been killed and 2,500 injured in the past two and a half years. Altogether, there have been 1,410 explosions in Northern Ireland. We have just had one in Great Britain. In the past year, since the beginning of 1971, it is estimated that 11,786 pounds of gelignite have been used and another 5,000 lbs. captured by the Army. These are terrible and frightening figures.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked, perhaps trying to bear out his own point, what had happened before internment. The number of bomb outrages increased before internment from 16 in January last year to 68 in July. Shooting incidents numbered four in January and 53 in July. In other words, the campaign had intensified during the first six months of 1971, before internment, and it was this intensification, I regret to say, which made this measure of internment essential to protect and to reassure the public in the face of such a vicious onslaught by these terrorists, these members of the I.R.A.

Mr. McNamara: Would the hon. Gentleman now answer my question?


What was the escalation after the introduction of internment?

Mr. McMaster: I regret that I do not have exact figures with me, but I gave the exact figures in our last debate on Northern Ireland. Certainly the number of explosions has been falling monthly. It is lower this month than last and was lower last month than in the month before. Internment has been elective in decreasing month by month the number of killings, murders and explosions in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Stallard: Not true.

Mr. McMaster: I shall not be tempted to go further into that. Suffice it to say that with this background of vicious assault on people, one wonders how hon. Members can talk about the necessity for political reform. There is clearly a body at work in Northern Ireland, and in Britain, whose one purpose is, by force of arms, to reunite Ireland. They make no secret of it and they are prepared to stop at nothing to achieve that object.
A comprehensive programme of reforms was put into effect by the Northern Ireland Government. It included the disbandment of the B Specials, which was something demanded in Londonderry, and the disarming of the police. The I.R.A. immediately showed its bona fides by stepping up its campaign of violence at that stage.

Mr. Orme: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this escalation of violence started in August, 1969, when a number of Protestants came out of the Protestant area in Belfast and burnt 490 Roman Catholic houses? Was that not the first move that brought about intervention by British troops?

Mr. McMaster: I wish to deal with this very briefly. The hon. Gentleman knows very well what the Widgery Tribunal is inquiring into in Londonderry. There has been a concerted effort, both recently and in 1969, to break down law and order in Northern Ireland. In the three days preceding the trouble in Belfast, there had been concentrated, savage and vicious attacks on the police. They were attacked from the tops of high buildings with petrol bombs and stones. Sharpened railings were hurled at them. I saw some of this. Four hundred police

men were injured. At that time not one shot was fired. The police were being driven into the ground.

Mr. Orme: Who burnt 490 houses?

Mr. McMaster: When they used tear gas, shooting broke out in Belfast and in Newry, and this resulted in Protestant reaction. I am surprised that the reaction did not come earlier.
By and large—I say as firmly as I can—the Protestant population, and the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland, who are suffering more than anyone else in Northern Ireland, have shown considerable restraint in the face of savage attacks upon persons which have resulted in the deaths of many civilians and members of the police and Armed Forces, and the destruction of much property. They have shown tremendous restraint. I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to pay a tribute to the people of Northern Ireland for their restraint and to show his confidence that Stormont will not yield to the request from hon. Members opposite, notably from the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), about the transfer of security or the balance of security from Northern Ireland to Westminster.
The Government's main aim must be to deal effectively with the terrorist. He can be dealt with most effectively by the people on the spot who know the form. Therefore, the present set up, with the security committee in Northern Ireland deciding how the police and the Army shall operate in order to bring to an end the terrorist campaign, is the most effective way of dealing with it.
I ask my right hon. Friend to say that he has confidence in the Stormont Government's ability to handle this terrible situation, working in conjunction with the Army, through Westminster, and that the Government intend to place first and foremost the aim of completely restoring law and order in Northern Ireland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes because I can agree quite happily with most of what has been said from this side of the House. A few days ago I expressed my dismay


that every time we discussed the situation in the Six Counties it seemed to take place during or after a crisis or emergency situation. I asked the Home Secretary to try to arrange a debate in which we could discuss rationally and without crisis some of the important things we would like to debate. No one can blame the Government for what they are doing tonight, and the outrage yesterday is still fresh in our minds. But we can blame them for lethargy in taking the necessary positive steps to try to alleviate or prevent some of the crises which are occurring almost every day.
I want to ask a few non-legal questions. Like other speakers, I hesitate to get involved in a legal discussion which is much better left to those who are qualified. But even those who are qualified have taken 50 years to find a loophole. It might have been better left to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and myself, who are engineers, and could possibly have stopped up that loophole before 50 years had elapsed.
From my personal experience in the Six Counties, I can emphasise the shattering effect that this discussion and the Bill will have on the Catholic community there. The people there will interpret this as meaning that if they act legally within the constitution and the Government lose, then the constitution will be changed. It is almost like the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate who was appearing before his selection committee and, after his great speech, said: "Ladies and gentlemen, these are my principles and if you do not like them I will change them". That is what is happening in the constitution and the law in the Six Counties and it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I am encouraged by the assurance that there is to be a debate in the very near future such as I have been seeking and I will save some of my points for that occasion when I hope to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker. As a trade unionist, not a lawyer, I have always been suspicious of panic agreements in the same way as my hon. and learned Friends are concerned about panic legislation. No good ever came out of panic and we would have been better to spend more time considering the Bill tonight than entering into this almost panic discussion.
I have a simple question which was touched upon by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). I have read the Special Powers Act, 1922, and Section 7 in particular. I thought that Section 7 already gave the Government the powers they are seeking in the Bill. When the Home Secretary replies will he say that he considers, in the light of today's judgment, that Section 7 is unconstitutional? If it is unconstitutional, does that not—or ought it not to do so—put the rest of the Special Powers Act under the microscope as we have been asking? If Section 7 is unconstitutional, then much of the rest of the Act is unconstitional also.
I am particularly disturbed because some of us have been arguing that certain powers should be transferred from Stormont to Westminster. The Bill seems to me to put more powers in the hands of the Northern Ireland Parliament. It frightens me terribly, and it will frighten many people who have already suffered under the powers that exist there, to think that its powers will be strengthened.
Twelve months ago, hon. Members on this side tried to introduce a Bill of Rights. It would have taken care of all the points raised tonight, and many more besides. We shall try again in the near future. If the Government give it their blessing, instead of putting on the Whips against it, we might solve many problems and take some constructive action.
Another point that worries me as a layman is the question of retrospective legislation. As an active shop steward, I was always brought up to believe that the speech is not to be taken as the agreement; what counts is what is written down. So it is all very well for the Government to give assurances and to make fine speeches, but in the end it is the Bill that operates, not a speech. Clause I says:
The limitations imposed by paragraph (3) of section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws shall not have effect, and shall be deemed never to have had effect, …
That seems to me to say that the Bill is retrospective to 1922 at least. If it is, what are the implications? It is not retrospective to 1969, as some newspapers have said. As I read it, it goes back to 1922, and it may well, therefore, have


many more serious repercussions than I have been able to envisage in the short time since I first read the Bill.
I am also concerned that we seem to be giving the Northern Ireland Parliament more powers than it has had hitherto. That worries me, because of its possible future legislation. We are giving it an open-ended piece of legislation, and it has only to fill it in. I am frightened to death, with the present Government in the Six Counties, about how it will be filled in. Most of us will be worried about the possibility of putting our troops in even more danger if we place legislation like this in the hands of the kind of people who operate at Stormont.
I hope that the Minister who replies will be able to reassure those of us who are not legally-minded and who do not understand all the legal niceties, but who understand the effects the Bill will have, particularly its retrospective effect, and the fact that it appears to give Stormont much more power than it should have.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I rise to make just one point of immediate practical importance that the House seems to be losing sight of.
What we are discussing is not quite such technical lawyers' stuff as some hon. Members would have us believe.
Our Forces in Ireland are faced with a very difficult task of assisting the police forces to keep law and order. One of the situations most likely to result in a breach of law and order is the gathering of a number of people, commonly called in law "an assembly". An assembly that gets excited and out of hand has the makings of an ugly situation. So our Forces, charged with this difficult duty, ought and were thought to have the authority to order three or more persons forming an assembly to disperse. It seems very sensible and very practical that they should have that authority, but it is no good having authority like that unless there are some sanctions to be visited upon those who refuse to obey the order. That is what happened in the case which gave rise to the proceedings in question which give rise to the purpose for which we are here today.
A commissioned officer, having ordered three or more people to disperse,

found that his order was not obeyed. Accordingly, those who had failed to obey that order were prosecuted for failing to comply with an order to disperse given under Regulation 38(1). It has now been held by the highest court which has yet pronounced upon the matter that, as the regulation was invalid, the conviction of an offence contrary to that regulation could not stand.
Perhaps I may illustrate the practical consequences by departing from what is sometimes regarded as lawyers' language. If a commissioned officer were now to order or direct three or more people to disperse, he might be met by whatever is the Northern Irish equivalent of being told to take a running jump. The person concerned would commit no offence in doing that, because the officer would be unable to enforce his order, there would be no criminal offence, and the sanction would have gone.
We are also concerned with indemnity. That is an important consideration. However, the most important and immediate practical consideration is to restore the position so that our Forces, charged with this duty in Northern Ireland, are able to give such directions or orders as they consider necessary to keep order and that there shall be some sanction with which to enforce any such directions or orders.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that no one is saying that these powers should not be given to Her Majesty's Forces? The argument is whether Stormont or this House shall have the power to confer them.

Mr. Percival: That may be so.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not been in the Chamber long.

Mr. Percival: The hon. Gentleman is less than generous. I have heard every word in the debate, except for two minutes, the purpose of which may be guessed since I have been here since the beginning of the debate. Had I not been here from the beginning of the debate I might not have felt it necessary to leave for that short time.
I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). My purpose is to remind the House of urgent and practical considerations which appear to have been


lost sight of. The debate seemed to be going very wide and getting on to matters of great interest and importance which will no doubt have to be considered in this House on other occasions. I wanted to bring it back to what seems to me the most immediate points of practical importance with which we are dealing in this Bill.

9.13 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: A number of hon. Members have claimed that they are perturbed at the Bill now passing through the House. I am astounded not only that the Bill should be presented in such a short period of time but that it appears to be the intention of both the Labour and the Liberal Parties not to vote against this legislation.
A number of points have to be raised on the whole question of this kind of legislation with relevance in particular to Northern Ireland and in general to the entire British public.
Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the effect of this legislation on the people of Northern Ireland. There are those among us who, from the introduction of the Army, from the use once again of the Special Powers Act and of internment, have time and again pointed out the effect that it would have upon the community. Each time we have been answered by cries about the maintenance of law and order, respect for the law, and an orderly society. They say we should use the democratic channels to pursue our ends. But at each attempt to pursue those ends within the democratic channels, either in Westminster or in the North of Ireland, those democratic channels have been cut as fast as we have opened them.
Members of this House stood aghast in July, 1970, when the Stormont Administration, in a short period of 18 hours, rushed through the Criminal Justice Provisions Act. After a hurried 18-hour debate they produced mandatory gaol sentences for those convicted of riotous behaviour or behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
We were told in the Downing Street agreement, supported by both the Tory and the Labour Governments, that they
reaffirmed that in all legislation and executive decisions of Government every citizen of Northern Ireland is entitled to the same

equality of treatment and freedom from discrimination as obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom, irrespective of political views or religion.
The general burden of the Downing Street agreement, though many of us said it was too late and certainly not a great revolutionary programme, was that this House stood by its claims that British standards of democracy, such as they were or are, should obtain in the North of Ireland.
What we see in the present legislation is not British standards as they obtained but Northern Ireland Government standards of corruption now being brought to this country by methods used by the Stormont Administration of rushing important legislation through. It took Stormont 18 hours. This House is about to rush this legislation in one short evening—through the House of Commons, through another place, and back to this House, to be made law.
I understand the Government's position. They feel they have got themselves into a pretty pickle, for they have found themselves with an illegal Army in the North of Ireland. That is the Government's problem, not mine. I have always maintained that it was an illegal Army.
Concerning this question of rushing the legislation through, six months ago I personally wrote to the Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence pointing out to him the precise point made in this legislation, that the Northern Ireland Government, under the Special Powers Act, did not have the right to pass legislation in respect of Her Majesty's Forces. In his answer, the stupidity of which was equalled only by its brevity, he said it was not his business, it was the Northern Ireland Government's business, and, anyway, it was not mine—or words to that effect. I attempted several times to raise these matters through the usual democratic channels of this House, taking Questions to the Table Office. I was told that it was not a problem for this House, that it was a matter for Northern Ireland legislation. Now, because a court in Northern Ireland has passed a judgment, all of a sudden it is a problem for this House, a problem which is to be solved in a matter of four or five hours.
Are we to take a general precedent from that—that, when this Parliament


passes a law, it is a Bill which is a declaration of the law, not an attempt to change the law? I would dispute that personally, but the Bill claims to be a declaration of the law. Are we to understand that when this Parliament, or any Parliament in the United Kingdom passes a law, and it is enacted, and it is acted upon by the courts and interpreted by the courts, the Government, if they do not like it, can say they will declare their own interpretation of the law and make it binding on the courts? If that is the case, let us be honest about it and dispense with courts altogether, if the interpretation of the law is to be declared on the Floor of this House.
I dispute that this is a declaration of the law. It is a changing of the law. It is a law which says that, whereas up to and including this evening, in Northern Ireland the Government did not have power to pass or enact legislation in respect of Her Majesty's Forces, from this evening, when this Bill becomes law, as it undoubtedly will, that Government will have had that power, and that power will then apply, since this House still refuses to exert any power over legislation passed at Stormont. The powers under this Bill will apply to any other legislation passed or powers given by the Northern Ireland Government. Soon we may have commissioned officers of the British Army doing the debt collecting against rent strikers in Northern Ireland. What will this House do about that?
Because of the immediate urgency, as the House may see it, of the position of the British Army, the general precedent set in this House this evening is being overlooked by hon. Members. The miners have just finished their hard struggle against the Government and the Coal Board. During that strike the question of picketing was raised. The Home Secretary said that he would review the law in reference to picketing. is that the law, or are we to understand that that law may be reviewed as this law is being reviewed? Are we to understand that picketing is legal until such time as it becomes effective against the Tory Government, whereupon laws will be passed to make picketing illegal?

Sir Ronald Russell: Rubbish!

Miss Devlin: Is such a law to be enacted against all members of the working class in this country who will be forced into conflict with the Tory Government time after time? Will similar legislation be enacted to deal with them?
There are two main points on the drafting and passing of this legislation. First, in the general sense it is proven that the Government have no respect for law or order, for the courts or for the rules of democracy, and that the Government, when they find themselves at the wrong end of their own rules, simply reverse law and order and democracy to make themselves once again the winners. If hon. Members allow that to happen tonight, it will happen not only in respect of the British Army in Northern Ireland but in respect of everyone else who attempts to stand against the Tory Government.
Secondly, in the context of Northern Ireland, nothing is more sure than that the Government will finally and decidedly cut off recourse to further action, as they have done in the case of Mr. Hume and others referred to today, and in the case of Mr. William Moore, against whom civil damages have been awarded in the courts. This Bill effectively prevents us taking any further action to prove the legality of our position. That means that there are masses of people who have no legal, peaceful redress, and on your heads be that problem.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) is right in suggesting that what we are doing this evening is a very serious act. The House finds itself in a hard situation, and hard situations, like hard cases, tend to create bad law.
The fear has been expressed that under the cloak of the immediate necessity of extending the protection of this House and Parliament to the troops we have sent to Northern Ireland we may be enacting something which we shall later regret. This is a true fear, and I hope the Government appreciate this point. We are asked to pass a Bill which will be retrospective at least to 1922 and which will, therefore, affect the rights of people in Northern Ireland, we are being asked to act hurriedly, and the House hates doing that, and we are asked to do something which we cannot easily


revise later. The Government have a duty to the House to assure it on some of these matters.
The alternatives are clear. Either our troops are withdrawn tonight from their present duties in Northern Ireland or we pass the Bill. I have considered the Bill and at first blush it does not appear to me to add greatly to the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I hope I am right in this, although often one's first reaction to legislation is wrong. The power over the Armed Forces of the Crown rests firmly with this House through the Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland. It is only this House which can control what is done by the Army. What is in question is the legal responsibility for the acts performed by the Army. It is necessary to pass this legislation if there is to be legal protection for what the Army does.
I express some surprise at the decision of the Northern Ireland Divisional Court since I see that the judgment of Mr. Justice Ackner does not seem to have been referred to. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, it was."] Well, if it was, I missed it. I cannot understand why it was held that this was not in pursuit of law and order.
In passing this Bill, we as Parliamentarians will be acting against our instincts. It is a bad precedent to pass in a hurry something which will have a retrospective effect. But let us consider the alternative. If the troops are withdrawn from their present duties in Northern Ireland, what will happen? It must be remembered that those troops were welcomed in Northern Ireland as an alternative to the forces employed by the Ulster Government. Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act still applies and the duty to maintain law and order rests firmly with the Government at Stormont. If our troops were withdrawn, they would have to employ their own people to do this job. The real choice which the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster and her colleagues face—and I say this to the hon. Lady because I have considerable sympathy with her—is that if the Army is withdrawn, then surely the B Specials will be strengthened by the Stormont Government. Other forces would be brought in to replace them. Would that be preferable to the hon. Lady?

Miss Devlin: I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman about the alternative to withdrawing the British Army from its present duties. As I understand it, the problem arises that the British Army are acting under the Special Powers Act without being constituted a civil authority. This does not preclude the British Army from assisting the civil authority, namely assisting the police and allowing the police to carry out the Special Powers Act.

Mr. Hooson: When the hon. Lady looks at the practicalities of the matter, she surely must see that the Army cannot possibly do what this House requires it to do, without acting under the Special Powers Act. I was one of those who doubted from the start the wisdom of sending in the Army at all. I do not believe that any solution for Ireland will be engineered from this House. The problem of Ireland has to be settled in Ireland.
Let us face reality. As a trained constitutional lawyer I hate to pass legislation of this kind, and indeed we must all hate it as Parliamentarians. What we are doing is an extremely serious matter, and I hope that the Government will be sensible enough to ensure that we will have the opportunity of looking at this Bill again when it becomes law and will have the opportunity to debate it. My cursory impression is that it does not add greatly to the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament, but many much greater lawyers than I have been wrong in their impression of legislation which has been passed quickly through this House.
It seems to me that this House has no option this evening but to pass this Bill. We have sent troops to Northern Ireland and they have been welcomed there to maintain law and order. We would all be lacking in our duty if we did not cloak those troops with the necessary powers, even though they are retrospective. But we must recognise that this is an exceptional and serious step and should in no way be regarded as a precedent.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I support the last words spoken by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). It is of course


essential that this House should reconsider this legislation at the earliest opportunity. I should have thought that enough hon. Members have indicated that they have grave doubts about the draftsmanship of the Bill and whether the Bill is the right vehicle for this sort of legislation.
One very important point which remains to be answered, and which was postulated with great force by the Leader of the Liberal Party, is, does this Bill in fact confer greater powers on Stormont'? If that were its effect, it would be totally disastrous because Stormont has already Draconian powers which it is exercising, and responsibility for exercising them falls from day to day and hour to hour on our Forces. It is right for that reason alone that we should look very carefully at this legislation.
We must also see how this is viewed in Ulster. Very grave doubts have been expressed about the situation there in the light of this legislation. We have to make quite sure that we do not rule out, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) suggested, a political initiative. He was speaking, I think, not for the forces of law and order in Ulster but for those who bury their heads in the sand. It is absolutely essential that we should apply political initiative at this stage and that we should root out injustice wherever it appears. There was unquestionably an injustice in the case of Moore v. the Chief Constable of Ulster and the Minister of Defence when it was suggested that three members of the British Forces were lying before a tribunal.

Mr. McMaster: I think the hon. Member has misinterpreted what I said. I do not rule out political initiative in the ordinary sense, but I say that priority must be given to restoring law and order because the situation with which we are dealing and with which the Army is dealing is meeting an armed attack by I.R.A. terrorists. In those circumstances to talk about political solutions when the only solution which they see is to annex a part of the United Kingdom to a foreign country by force is only to encourage terrorists to increase their efforts.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I deeply deplore the activities of the I.R.A., but not for one moment could I embrace the political

philosophies of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, which I think are leading Ulster to disaster.
I express doubts about the draftsmanship of the Bill. The second finding of the court that Regulation 38(1) is a law is in itself a matter of grave doubt. This is a matter which could be overruled, and I should have thought it essential that this point was underlined in the Bill, but the Bill does not do that at present. A subsidiary submission was made by those representing the successful appellants that Regulation 38(1) does not conform to the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament because it is excessively far reaching and oppressive. It may be that that point also should be dealt with in the legislation, but so far it has been ignored.
The third point as to the retroactive nature of the legislation is what effect it will have on claims which have already been instituted—that is to say before the Bill is enacted. Are those with claims to be denied? If so, it may mean that a person who has perfectly validly brought an action may have to pay the costs of that action. That would be an unjust situation.
I rarely praise the House of Lords, but I think that on this occasion the immense power of legal luminaries in the House of Lords may be of very considerable value in sorting out this legislation which has been so rushed and which I think may prove very inadequate.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: My speech will be remarkable for its brevity. The former Prime Minister on many occasions has referred to 50 years of Unionist misrule. I do not agree with him, but this debate underlines one point, the complete and total independence of the Northern Ireland judiciary. It is right to recognise that as the hallmark of a free society.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: I share all the anxieties which have been expressed about the retrospective nature of this legislation. It is sweeping. It is immense. It wipes out a right and a limitation which has been considered fundamental by people who have argued, in the context of the problems of Northern Ireland, that there was a solution to be had by legal methods. I am


sure that it will set back their cause a very long way.
It is one thing to introduce retrospective legislation having given long and careful consideration to all its implications. It is quite another to sweep it away in one evening in this Parliament. One hon. Member said that hard cases make bad law. It is bad Governments and bad Parliaments that make bad law, and the duty lies upon us to determine the nature of the law that we are putting through this House, not only law for the United Kingdom in general but law for Northern Ireland, which is in very sensitive and difficult circumstances.
There are people today who are depending upon what is now the legal position to support claims in the courts. There is the mother of 14 children who had two bullets put through her on "Bloody Sunday". Her life was saved, but her leg was lost. What is to happen to her claim if, by this legislation, the limitations on the Northern Ireland Government are swept away? That question must be answered in detail before Parliament takes a decision.
If it is the case that certain limitations on the Northern Ireland Government are to be swept away and that certain indemnities are to be granted against the actions of troops which have not existed until now, what about the position of those who have claims arising from the actions of those troops? Surely these claims must be safeguarded. If they are not, the bitterness, intense as it is at the moment, must become worse. If the position of claimants is not safeguarded, all the work of those who have sought hard in Northern Ireland to persuade people to believe that there is redress to be had by going to the courts will be destroyed. I think that we will be well advised to consider this Bill long and carefully before sanctioning it.
It would be tragic if we put this Bill through swiftly. It has been generally recognised in this House that for many months now we have needed an opportunity to consider the rôle and the position of British troops in Northern Ireland. It may be that the court decision which has brought about this Bill has created just such an opportunity for us to stand back and to ask why it is that nearly all the hopes that were raised when British troops went into Northern Ireland have

been dashed, and why it is that they have been unable to carry out the rôle that we believed they could fulfill.
If we do not rush this Bill through, we can use the opportunity which has rendered a Bill of this sort necessary not suddenly to sweep away the limitations on the powers of the Stormont Government but to consider quickly how we can change the rôle of British troops in Northern Ireland, to alter the relationship between this Parliament and Stormont, and possibly to create a new initiative to solve the serious and desperate problems of Northern Ireland.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am no constitutional lawyer but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), having had a further chance to study this short Bill, I am very concerned and overawed by its far-reaching effects. That is why I feel bound to say a few words about it.
Like my hon. Friend, I should like to know what remedy anyone in Northern Ireland with a claim for compensation or damages against our troops can possibly have if this Bill is passed. Is it the fact that they can no longer go to the Government in Stormont? Is it the fact that they can not even come to this Government? Is it now the fact that anybody who seeks to make a claim for compensation or damages against the British Forces may, for example, have to be recommended to go to some international tribunal? The kind of waffly, vague statements that we have had from the Government tonight would suggest that any claims for damages for compensation would be put in a very dubious position by this Bill.
Apart from that, I cannot help feeling that we have had a few too many examples of retrospective legislation passed by this House. Retrospective legislation, particularly on matters like this, goes against the very grain of the European Convention of Human Rights and here is this Government today, admittedly in a very difficult situation—and to a certain extent I can sympathise with hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench in their difficult situation—seeking such legislation. Really, is that the right way to act, to pass retrospective legislation against the European Convention of Human Rights


in a particularly difficult and very tragic situation like this?
Apart from this, I cannot help feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness had a point in saying that at least the Army's rather dubious legal position gave this Government pause for thought. At least we have had time to reflect on the rôle, ownership and control of the Army in Northern Ireland. But instead of taking time and pausing to reflect, we are to rush this legislation through quickly. I feel that a most important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness, when he said the case of all those who had been urging the people in Northern Ireland to try out the rule of law is quite damaged.
All the advice given to relatives of those who suffered on "Bloody Sunday" to go to Widgery, all such good advice, is now put in jeopardy. We have now the kind of situation where anybody in Northern Ireland who even says, "Try out the law" will be told "It is no good because it will be altered"; and anybody who says, "We shall not even try out the law" is given tremendous encouragement by the passage of this legislation tonight. We have had last week, and even this week, far too many examples of very rushed legislation in this House. This week we have had the European Communities Bill and its ramifications. I personally deplore very much a Bill which not only rushes things through but gives more power to Stormont.
Apart from that, it violates the very fundamental constitutional principle of this country that normally it is Parliament that passes laws but it is the position of the judiciary to interpret them. Tonight we have a position where Parliament passes the law and interprets it. That I must totally deplore.

9.45 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It has been very evident from the course of this debate that the House, while anxious to give the powers required by the Government under this law, for reasons very clear to all of us, is nevertheless very deeply disturbed about whether these powers are likely to be exploited in an unfortunate way, and

very deeply disturbed at the speed at which the legislation is being taken.
I begin by asking the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary why it was that since the reserved judgment was given, as I understand, by the Divisional Court on 12th January, there has been so little notice and discussion, through the usual channels, of this Bill? It may be that there is a full explanation of that, but I understand that leave was granted on 29th November and judgment was reserved on 12th January. We would have expected at least some discussion through the usual channels about what might be necessary this evening.
Secondly, the assumptions of the Labour Government, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General referred, were not quite the same as those which at present exist. I fully accept the responsibility of my hon. Friends and myself as Ministers at the time in referring to our belief, which was also the belief of the present Government, that the Army was legally covered in operating under the Special Powers legislation. But I think there was a difference—and I refer to columns 336 of 25th November, 1969, and 1212 of 1st December, 1969, of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The big difference is that the remarks made in those debates were within the context of an expectation of a rapid review of the Special Powers Act with a view to replacing it with amending legislation. I refer to the remarks of my hon. Friend the then Minister of Defence for Administration, who said:
Believing, as we do, that the Stormont Government will move to a revision of the Special Powers Act, we look forward to the day when we have only powers necessary for our task."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1212.]
He went on to say that until that happened we would rely on the Special Powers Act.
The situation now is very different. There is no prospect in the near future of that Act being revised and replaced by legislation of a type more normal in the British Parliament and therefore this is a more serious extension that we then envisaged.
While we all fully accept that the Army must be adequately covered by the protection of the law and that it cannot


be asked to do the extremely difficult and unpleasant job it has to do in Northern Ireland without being aware that it is fully covered by the law, we nevertheless ask the Home Secretary for an assurance that there is no extension of powers involved in the legislation beyond those assumed until twelve o'clock today. I ask this because it is of crucial importance that the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is answered in the affirmative. He asked for an assurance that this will in no way extend or increase the powers of Stormont.
The Home Secretary will be aware from the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) that we on this side of the House are recognising this as "safety first" legislation and wish to do nothing to hold it back. But we want to ask the Government, if the effects of the change in the law are in any way in doubt, for an assurance that they will return to the House to discuss the matter further. We must ask this because the legislation is being taken through the House very rapidly and none of us can be certain of the consequences.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will say a little more about the effect on claims? The Bill refers to immunities extending to cover Her Majesty's Forces. The Attorney-General gave us an assurance from the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, for which we were grateful, with regard to the cases now before the courts arising from the anomalies in the law. Will the Home Secretary give a complete assurance that claims at present outstanding will not be affected by the Bill, in particular the cases being brought by relatives of the Derry victims?
Great fears have been expressed on all sides, not least on this side of the House, about the fact that we are extending the indemnification of the Army to cover the position that we all understood to be the case in the past. In a situation in which the Army operates as it must under special powers in Northern Ireland which are far more extensive than any laws under which it operates on the mainland, we should be much happier—and I gather that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would be much happier—if we had the parliamentary

reassurance of the emergency procedure that this House has gone through in the last few days, namely the procedure by which every 30 days emergency powers are renewed. We do not expect that at present in Northern Ireland but what we must ask the Government to do is to consider carefully whether in the light of this legislation which we all recognise to be necessary the time has not come to look again at the question of a political initiative in Northern Ireland.
There is a sense in which we can never find a military solution to political problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others pointed out that this legislation, necessary as it is, will be seen, whether we like it or not, rather differently in Northern Ireland and very differently by the minority there. I plead with the Government, because we share their great concern about the deteriorating position in Northern Ireland, to look again at the even greater urgency and necessity of raising again the whole question of a political initiative, because it seems that this legislation could all too easily be misinterpreted and misunderstood and become another dangerous factor in the Northern Ireland situation unless the Government can give an early earnest of their willingness to try to settle this problem not by military means, which cannot be an answer, but by political initiatives that we shall do our best to further.

9.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): As so many hon. Members have said in the course of this debate, this is a very serious matter for which there are very few precedents in the speed with which the House is being asked to consider legislation. I must apologise again for the shortness of notice, but the judgment was known to us only about noon today. We had obviously taken precautions about what we should do once the judgment became known, but until it was given we could not discuss with other people what the proper action should be.
This is a serious matter, as has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and other hon. Gentlemen, and I think the House has recognised the difficulties in which


our troops have been placed by a position which I think, quite frankly, has come as a surprise to many legal Members of this House—and I do not claim to be one. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but particularly to hon. Members opposite, for the understanding way in which they have accepted what we believe to be a necessity in these present circumstances.
The debate has ranged fairly wide at a number of points. I will not go into the broad issues of the Northern Ireland tragedy, but I want to say one or two things about it. First, there should be no misunderstanding about the effect of this Measure. It is to restore the law to what everyone thought it was until this morning. There is no other change at all. As the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) very wisely pointed out, it has no effect on the control of the Army. This is a matter concerning the legal powers of the Army. The way in which those powers are exercised is always under the control of the Government responsible to this House. I am very glad to make that clear. It is most important that it be made clear. Second, there is no increase whatever in the powers of Stormont beyond what everyone, including hon. Members of this House, believed yesterday to be the powers which Stormont then possessed. I will refer to that again in a moment.
On the wider issues and the need for what is called a political initiative, I would argue again that we took a considerable political initiative in proposing talks on a wholly unconditional basis to try to reach agreement in Northern Ireland. I still believe that the right and best way of reaching a lasting solution is by agreement, and that agreement can come only from discussion. There is much argument at the moment that there should be a new political initiative now. I feel that in these matters timing is exceedingly important. As the Leader of the Opposition has said on more than one occasion, proposals made at the wrong moment can be carried away on the wind and their advantages lost. Timing is very important indeed. Therefore, I think it would be quite wrong to allow a sudden, wholly unexpected event such as this to affect the timing of what we believe to be the right way to take

an initiative if we decide that an initiative should be taken.
I fully accept all that has been said this afternoon about the nature of the situation in Northern Ireland and the profound importance of ensuring that what we are doing today does not make the problem any more difficult. That is why I have emphasised that misunderstandings should not arise about the scope of this Bill. While I entirely accept that, I think it right to say that the time to discuss this matter will come in the debate to which the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the Attorney-General referred for the discussion of these broader issues, rather than in the context of this fairly narrowly drawn but highly important debate here today.
May I reiterate quite briefly the circumstances that have led to our action today. The Army has been operating in Northern Ireland in support of the civil power since 1969 and everyone thought, until today, that it was operating under the regulations made under the Special Powers Act. That was the belief of the previous Government, it was the belief of the present Government and it was the decision of Mr. Justice Ackner in the High Court in this country.
It is only today that the Divisional Court in Northern Ireland has produced a different view, a view which could be challenged on appeal to the House of Lords. It might be held by the House of Lords to be inaccurate and they may prefer the view of Mr. Justice Ackner, but we cannot spare the time to wait for an appeal to the House of Lords, in practical circumstances, which, from the point of view of our Army operating in Northern Ireland, are very urgent indeed.
This was the position accepted in good faith on both sides and by all concerned. It was believed by both Governments and held by Mr. Justice Ackner that the Army was operating within the Special Powers Act. A different view was taken today by the Divisional Court, and the effect is twofold. There is the effect upon our own Armed Forces, our individual soldiers, who could be held to have been acting illegally and who must therefore be given an indemnity against the consequences of what they were ordered to do by their superiors. That is essential.
Second, of course, the Army must have the powers to operate against the terrorists. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said that he hoped that the Army was still going on as before. I must tell him that that is not the case. It would not, in our view as a Government, be proper for the Army to continue regardless of the effect of this judgment. That is why we consider it of such importance to pass this legislation forthwith through Parliament, because, without this legislation, we do not believe that the Army would be justified in such actions as searching vehicles for explosives, searching people for explosives and the many things that they have to do in order to fight the terrorists but which they cannot do under the common law, under which they would otherwise be reduced to operating.
The powers available to the Army under the common law are not sufficient to provide for searching, holding up vehicles, arrests and the many things that they have to do, and which Ministers in the previous Government frankly and rightly said that they had to do under the Special Powers Act.

Mr. Orme: Why must the Army act under the Special Powers Act? Could not the Army operate under the direction of this House and completely apart from the Special Powers Act?

Mr. Maudling: I am afraid that the Army in Northern Ireland, if reduced to the ordinary common law, could do only what any of us as ordinary citizens can do. In order, for example, to search vehicles believed to contain explosives, they must operate under the Special Powers Act, which must be the Act passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament, which has the responsibility for peace, order and good government in Northern Ireland under our present constitution. That is the legal position that we have to face.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) rightly commented on the wholly exceptional procedure which was necessitated

by the circumstances. I am glad that he accepts the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland that there will be no retrospective criminality.
Also, of course, there is no cover in the Bill for any improper action. Therefore, the cases to which hon. Members have referred, of people claiming damages against British soldiers in allegation of improper action, are not affected in any way. The law will be exactly as everyone thought it was until noon today and any action brought on this basis clearly will not be affected.
The right hon. and learned Member also said that there should be a debate on policy. I have referred to that in calling the attention of the House to what the Leader of the House said, accepting the need for an early debate to be arranged through the usual channels on the broader issues.
The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) who has kindly sent me a note explaining why he cannot be present at the moment, raised two points to which I refer with some trepidation, not being a practising lawyer. His first was that, because of the Crown Proceedings Act. 1947, there was no need for a special Bill indemnifying British soldiers. That is not my advice. I share the view of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South that there are obvious reasons under the criminal provisions why the present law would not protect our soldiers without this special provision. I think that the whole House will agree that if there was any doubt about it, we must make absolutely certain that our people are properly protected.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

NORTHERN IRELAND

Question again proposed,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to declare the law as to the legislative powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland under section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, so far as relates to Her Majesty's forces and in particular to the conferment of powers, authorities, privileges or immunities on them.

Mr. Maudling: The second point made by the right hon. Member for Devon, North was his belief that the Bill was somehow giving to Stormont greater powers than was originally intended. I think that this was slightly reflected in what the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) said. This was certainly not the case. It has always been the belief that the Northern Ireland Government had the power to legislate for the British Forces. Indeed, the very first regulations they made, nearly 50 years ago, included regulations dealing with the Armed Forces. The point is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, one must make express provision for the Armed Forces in any regulation one makes. The question at issue before the court today, as I understand it, is whether the treatment of the Armed Forces in these particular regulations fell within the concept of the constitution. The court held that it did not. But on the general operation, there can surely be no doubt that preceding Governments, both sides of the House and the general public, and a majority of the legal profession, have always believed that Stormont had these powers. It has come as a great surprise to many people that, technically, they may not have these powers. Therefore, I say categorically that nothing in this Measure will give to Stormont any greater powers than they were commonly held yesterday already to possess. I welcome the opportunity to emphasise that.

Mr. Stallard: As I am still a little worried and confused about the question of improper action and about what happens to existing claims, would the right hon. Gentleman explain and enlarge on how one would prove, for instance, improper action by soldiers who are covered or would be covered under the Special Powers Act?

Mr. Maudling: The Special Powers Act does not cover anyone against doing

something illegal, and claims against soldiers that were being pursued yesterday, if based on the allegation that a soldier had behaved improperly, remain exactly as valid now and tomorrow as they were yesterday. Any claim against a soldier for doing something unlawful remains totally unaffected.

Sir Elwyn Jones: That would apply to the use of excessive force, where that force is not necessary?

Mr. Maudling: Certainly. That would be illegal, because it is the minimum amount of force necessary, and no more than that. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for helping to make that important point clear.
I have covered the main points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. She asked whether we would give an undertaking to bring this Bill back to the House if doubts were subsequently cast upon the effectiveness of the technical drafting. I entirely agree that we must get this right. The Government have the advantage of extremely skilled draftsmen, and parliamentary drafting is a particularly specialised occupation. It is certainly my impression, and that of my right hon. and learned Friend who is expert in these matters, that the Bill as drafted will cover our purpose which is, as I have said, specifically to restore the law to what it was generally held to be yesterday.

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he has covered all the points, but in view of the obvious desire of the House, on all sides, to agree to what the Government are proposing, to give protection to the Army which has been ordered to go to Northern Ireland, would he cover a point he has not mentioned? Some hon. Members are still doubtful about both protection and giving additional powers to the Stormont Government. Would not the way to deal with it be for the Government to give an assurance that, as they are asking Parliament to rush through this legislation one evening, after three months or six months the Government will give the House a chance to review it?

Mr. Maudling: The point, simply, is that what we believe we are doing, through the Bill, is to restore the law to the position it was believed to be in before doubt was cast upon it in the


Divisional Court today. If it is subsequently shown that our legislation is defective, we shall have to listen to the voice of the House in putting it right. But I am confident that what we are putting before the House will do this.

Mr. Clinton Davis: May I raise one point about Regulation 38(1)? The Home Secretary will be familiar, of course, with the second submission made on behalf of the appellants. If that submission were capable of being upheld and it was not a point upon which the court adjudicated, what would be the effect of this on Her Majesty's Forces?

Mr. Maudling: The Bill deals with what the court actually held. We have taken the decision of the court on the operative part of the proceedings and we are therefore dealing with what the court has held. What might happen under other circumstances is another matter, but this Bill is designed to deal with the situation which is arising on the judgment of the Divisional Court.

Mr. McMaster: Would my right hon. Friend clarify one point? Am I right in thinking that this Bill relates to the powers of soldiers to stop and search cars and to search premises? My right hon. Friend stated a few minutes ago that at the moment the soldiers are not carrying out their functions as they would if the Divisional Court had not taken its decision. I presume the soldiers are patrolling in order to help maintain peace. If they are shot at tonight from a building by snipers, as they are every night, would they have the right under their common law powers, to enter that building to try to find the sniper?

Mr. Maudling: They have their normal common law powers which all of us possess to apprehend anyone who is committing a crime But until Parliament has decided that they may, they must not exercise their powers under the Special Powers Act upon which doubt has been cast.
I welcome the tone of the debate. It is a considerable thing to put a platter of this character to the House of Commons at such short notice, and it is generally recognised on both sides of the House that, difficult as it is, we owe a duty to the troops in Northern Ireland who are carrying out their tasks so

gallantly to see that they have the indemnity to which they are entitled and the powers they need.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Attorney-General, Mr. Maudling, Lord Balniel and the Solicitor-General.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Bill to declare the law as to the legislative powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland under Section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, so far as relates to Her Majesty's forces and in particular to the conferment of powers, authorities, privileges or immunities on them, presented accordingly and read the First time and ordered to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[The Attorney-General.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Speaker: Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Goodhew and Mr. Fortescue. Teller for the Noes, Miss Devlin.
There being only one Teller for the Noes, Miss Devlin, I declare the Motion carried.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[The Attorney-General.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

The Chairman: Before I call Clause 1, I should tell the Committee that, owing to the extraordinary circumstances in which we are working, I have not been able officially to see any Amendments that hon. Members would like to move. Unofficially, of course, I have seen them, and I am grateful to hon. Members for the opportunity they have given me which has enabled me to have sufficient time to take advice and to see which I should and should not call. In fact, I shall be calling one Amendment to Clause 2. I thought the Committee would like to know that in advance in


order to save hon. Members asking questions, so that we can get on with the debate. The copies of the Amendment are available now. It stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).

Sir Elwyn Jones: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Where are the copies of the Amendments available?

The Chairman: They are available now in the Vote Office.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Robert. While hon. Members are obtaining copies of the Amendments, may we be assured that no progress will be made on the Bill?

The Chairman: No. The hon. Gentleman need feel no disquiet about this. The Amendment which I have selected is to Clause 2, and I am now about to call Clause 1 for discussion.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. With the greatest respect, you said that the Amendment which you are calling is to Clause 2. We are about to deal with Clause 1. If the proposed Amendments which hon. Members have put forward, but which have been ruled out of order for a variety of reasons, were on the Order Paper, we should be able to read them and to see whether they raise points that we might wish to raise when discussing the Clause. Those of us who have been present in the previous debate have not had an opportunity of obtaining the Order Paper.

The Chairman: I am sure that there is a great deal of substance in what the hon. Gentleman says, but we are working under difficult circumstances. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Amendment to Clause 2, which will shortly be in his hand, will not affect what might be said on Clause 1.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I have been to the Vote Office, and no Amendments are yet available.

The Chairman: That is rather bad luck. I thought they were available.

They will very shortly be available, I am sure.

Mr. Russell Kerr: May I move that the House be suspended for 15 minutes to enable hon. Members to see the Amendments?

The Chairman: I do not think I had better accept that. I may have to suspend perforce later, and I would rather not do it now.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Would it help the House if you were to read out the only Amendment which you have selected so that we know what we are talking about?

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment, when we get to it, is, in Clause 2, page 1, line 17, at the end add:
(2) This Act shall expire one year after its passing.
That is the Amendment in question.

Mr. McNamara: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the point I was raising was that, if manuscript Amendments have been tabled, whether you ruled them out of order or not, they would still be on the Order Paper and we should be able to see them. That they are out of order does not make them any more relevant to Clause 2 if they have been tabled to Clause 1.

The Chairman: The custom of the Committee, where we have these extraordinary circumstances, is that Amendments cannot be seen in the ordinary way because they cannot be printed. Technically, as I have explained, these Amendments existed only a few moments ago when the House gave the Bill a Second Reading and then went into Committee. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, much as I should like to do so.

Mr. English: As we are dealing with a retrospective Bill. Sir Robert, may we have a retrospective Order Paper which will at least illustrate tomorrow morning all the Amendments which were tabled?

The Chairman: That is not possible because, when we have concluded the business of the Committee, nothing more can be done about it—I hope.

Clause 1

EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT 1920 s.4(1) PARA. (3)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McNamara: Had it been in order I should have sought to move an Amendment to the Clause. My Amendment may have been ruled out of order because this is a declaratory Bill seeking to declare what the law was, is, and shall be. Because of that, it has not proved possible to move an Amendment to it. Yet, as the debate on Second Reading showed, there is a considerable amount of fear, suspicion and downright dissatisfaction at the way in which the Bill has been framed. I felt that, under the terms of the Statute and of Clause 1, more power was being given to the Stormont Parliament. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and I thought it right to try to table an Amendment which would have given this House and the other place the right to examine the regulations which we were retrospectively making legal.
It is a matter of considerable regret that the Government have chosen this form of legislation, effectively ruling out constructive Amendments which would have given further power to this House to examine and question Ministers about the rôle and the orders which the British Army was carrying out and acting under so that we could ensure that the Army was being used as a peace-keeping instrument, not as a political tool of the Stormont Government. That would have been the purpose of my Amendment. It is a matter of regret that we have not been able to examine a situation whereby the House of Commons could have gained more power over a subordinate legislature.

Miss Devlin: I oppose this Clause on two grounds. The first sentence reads:
The limitations imposed by paragraph (3) of section 4 (1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws shall not have effect …
etcetera. That simply means that, whereas the Government of Ireland Act,

such as it was, imposed certain limitations on the powers of Stormont to enact and enforce laws in respect of Her Majesty's Forces, this Clause changes that and allows the Stormont Administration to pass laws in respect of Her Majesty's Forces. That raised the question, who is to be ultimately responsible for Her Majesty's Forces and for the laws which Her Majesty's Forces are expected to obey?
In the first instance Westminster passes a law or gives orders and in the second Stormont makes laws or gives orders. This Bill gives both assemblies, this Parliament and the Northern Ireland Parliament, legal right to enforce legislation in respect of the troops, and when that legislation or those orders come into effect one may be left with the situation in which the British Army does not go in the direction or fire in the direction or do the work which the one, or the other, intended.
The Clause seeks to make retrospective legislation. Perhaps other hon. Members, perhaps the Minister himself, may be able to give us more information on this point, but in my limited understanding of international law, the passing of retrospective legislation is against international law and against the European convention, to which this country is a signatory, when it does not take time off to enact Special Powers Acts. Passing this law is dishonest. It changes the existing law while it declares itself merely to be a declaration of existing law. In passing retrospective law we in this House are in breach of our international obligations. We are in breach of international law if we allow this Bill to pass. International law constitutes this an illegal act, and this an illegal assembly.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I would ask a question, shortly, in relation to a matter which was aired a number of times during the debate on Second Reading—that we are giving more power to the Stormont Parliament as a result of this Bill. Although I am quite certain that the practical affect of what we are doing is what the Home Secretary suggested, is it not correct that, if this Bill is passed into law, the Northern Irish Government could pass legislation through Stormont taking to themselves the rôle and powers of the Ulster Defence Regiment?
According to Section 4(1)(3) of the Government of Ireland Act, the exclusion relates to matters concerning the defence of the Realm. We are saying in this Bill that the exclusion shall not
preclude the inclusion in laws made by that Parliament"—
that is, of Northern Ireland—
for the peace, order or good government of Northern Ireland of all provision relating to members of Her Majesty's forces …".
In these circumstances it could certainly be argued that the Ulster Defence Regiment is maintained for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland. Therefore, Stormont might very well say that it is they and not us who are responsible for the Ulster Defence Regiment and they could, within the constitution, make laws about that which are not the province of that Parliament.
I recognise that this is a legal point rather than a practical point, because we always have the reserve power of abrogating the constitution if the Northern Irish Parliament took a line which this Government did not like, but it is, surely, the legal position that they will be entitled to legislate in respect of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr. George Cunningham: I have been out of the Chamber for a moment and I am not sure what ruling has been given on the Amendment, but I will try to make my remarks fit this part of the proceedings.
I do not want to delay the passage of a suitable Measure tonight, but we have a choice between passing a provision like that which the Government are proposing, which puts at their highest the possibie powers we may permit Stormont to have or to keep and, alternatively—a more normal way of dealing with the situation—validating those Acts and regulations made under Acts which Stormont and Stormont Ministers have put into force until now but not giving Stormont power to make any more such provisions. The responsibility for conferring powers upon the British Armed Forces in Northern Ireland would rest where the court in Belfast said it now rests, with this Parliament.
I can see no objection to that situation. Many of us on this side of the House

in recent months have said repeatedly that responsibility for security in Northern Ireland should rest here in London with this House. The opportunity is now given to us, by accident, by a court in Belfast, to attain part of that objective. I do not object to the provisions already passed by Stormont and Ministers in Northern Ireland being retained upon the Statute Book, but that should be the end of the matter for Stormont. From now on, this House alone should be responsible for conferring powers upon the Armed Forces of this country operating in Northern Ireland.
We have not had an explanation from the Government why they have chosen this way rather than the way I am suggesting. If it were in order at a later stage, I should like to move an Amendment to achieve that objective. Failing that, I hope the Government will explain why they are doing it this way. In the absence of that explanation I would certainly oppose the Clause.

The Attorney-General: The debate is on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The Bill consists of this Clause and Clause 2, which describes what the Act may be called.
I think on the Motion we canvassed most of the points which have been raised. I can only repeat what I said on introducing the Bill. I say as emphatically as I can that we are not giving more power to Stormont. The purpose of the Bill is to declare what the law is and what the law was yesterday. I assure the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that the purpose of the Bill is not to give more power to Stormont, and I advise the House that it does not have that effect.
The Ulster Defence Regiment is an integral part of the British Army and is under the command of the British Army. It is part of the British Forces and as such is completely integrated into the British Army.
All that the Clause does is to declare what the law is in relation to the powers which can be given to the Forces in operation in Northern Ireland. As was said previously this is what the law was thought to be yesterday and in


1969, and it was how the law was interpreted by an English judge. What the Clause does is to declare that the law is as it has been interpreted and understood in the past.
It is for this reason that this form of legislation has been chosen in these particular circumstances. It is designed to be declaratory; to declare the law to be what it has been interpreted to be in the past, and in so doing it does not give to Stormont more power than it had yesterday.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: If the Bill is designed only to declare the law and not to change it, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain the purpose of the Bill? It must change the law from what it is now. In other words, the law as it stands at the moment is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to make it by this Measure. He is, therefore, changing the law. Will he please explain why he is changing it in this way, rather than in the way I suggested earlier?

The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the decision of the court in Northern Ireland says that the law is such that these special powers may not be given to the British Forces. The Bill declares the law—in a sense, of course, contrary to what the Northern Ireland court said—to be, in effect, what it has been believed to have been and what an English judge has described. That is the purpose of the Bill. It declares the law as to the legislative powers of Northern Ireland.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

The Chairman: Tellers for the Ayes. Mr. Fortescue and Mr. Speed. Teller for the Noes, Miss Devlin.
There being only one Teller for the Noes, I declare that the Ayes have it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE

Mr. Thorpe: I beg to move, in Clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end add:
(2) This Act shall expire one year after its passing.
I make this proposal in what I hope will be seen to be a helpful spirit and I hope that the Government will feel able, for the reasons I shall adduce, to accept it, for by doing so they would allay many of the fears and worries which have been expressed by hon. Members. Although the Attorney-General said that the Bill is declaratory, what it declares is that a judgment of a court in Northern Ireland is inaccurate and that the view which it took of the law is not the view which this House takes of the law.
It is a somewhat unusual piece of legislation, and I doubt whether there is a precedent for it. If there is a precedent, I suggest that there are not many pieces of legislation which have been rushed through with such speed as this Bill. I recall the case of Prince Rupert which was debated in this House, when the decision of the Privy Council was reversed and a statutory instrument was introduced for the purpose. It is a rare legislative occurrence and therefore the House requires to look carefully at what it is doing.
We are not merely declaring something, but we are reversing the judgment of one court which happens to conflict with the judgment of another court. In a declaration by this Parliament we are saying what the law is, what it was and what it ought to have been considered to be for the last 50 years. That is a sweeping legislative proposal.
We understand why this legislation is being rushed. We all accept—or certainly the majority of us in this House accept—that our troops must have freedom from civil and criminal actions, and for that reason it is of the essence that we should be speedy in our deliberations. But we in this House are very jealous when we are giving powers or declaring the nature of powers to be exercised by this House, by the Government or by anybody else. We shall have a debate next week on this matter, but by then this House will have no legislative power over this Bill.
I will not reopen the arguments which I put forward on Second Reading, but I must confess that on certain aspects of this Bill I was not entirely convinced either by the Attorney-General or by the Home Secretary on whether we are delegating powers to Stormont which Stormont did not have under the 1920 Act and which they did not believe they had under the 1922 legislation. I will not press that argument further, save to say that it has been put to me by lawyers whose advice I respect and whose advice I know the Attorney-General would respect.
We are producing speedy legislation to give immediate protection to our troops. This is right and proper, but what we are also doing, unless this Amendment is accepted, is to give this Bill a permanent legislative force. That is the danger. For a long period of time we had annual debates on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which no longer takes place because many of its provisions are incorporated in permanent legislation; we have an annual debate on immigration; and we also have a periodic debate on sanctions in regard to Rhodesia. Therefore, it is not unknown for this House to say that powers which we have granted must be subject to periodic review. I am not saying that we shall not require such powers in the future, because we shall. The point I am making is that I am not satisfied that those powers have been conferred in the best possible way and that we have the best possible legislation with which to do it.
If this House accepts, as it obviously does, the need for speedy protection for Her Majesty's Forces in the United Kingdom, it is surely not unreasonable to say that we shall give that protection by this Bill for a period of one year and that, long before that one year expires, we shall expect Her Majesty's Ministers to have considered the situation, in a way in which they might have liked to consider this matter had this legislation not been rushed through. I shall be surprised if, after due reflection and consultation, they do not produce a Bill which is very much more acceptable to this House and to the vast bulk of lawyers.
This is not a delaying tactic. It is a recognition of the necessity for this legislation, but it is a plea to the Government that we do not turn rushed legislation


into permanent legislation and that we shall have an opportunity to review it at a later stage. In that spirit I move the Amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Sir Elwyn Jones: While my hon. and right hon. Friends and I fully sympathise with and understand the motivation of this Amendment, it presents in my view one fundamental difficulty. That is that if the Amendment is agreed to the indemnity which the Bill proposes for the members of our Armed Forces and the legal protection which the Bill proposes to give to them would terminate in a year's time. It also would have effect on previous actions that could be made the subject of proceedings. In those circumstances, we see that as a great difficulty.
The view that I certainly form is that tonight the Home Secretary has given very important and specific assurances—first, that the Bill will not be used to impose criminality retrospectively; secondly, that no civil claims will be jeopardised by the Bill; and, thirdly, that no additional powers are conferred by the Bill on Stormont. If the Home Secretary will now give an undertaking that if it is found that any of those assurances cannot be or are not fulfilled he will bring the proposals back to the House for reconsideration, we shall not find it necessary to support this Amendment.

Mr. McNamara: Mr. Chairman, I very much regret what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has just said, but—

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. It is the practice to address me when in the Chair as Sir Robert.

Mr. McNamara: The first time I spoke in this House I nearly said "Comrade Speaker".

Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend has come a long way since then.

Mr. McNamara: When my right hon. and learned Friend was making his first point, I thought of the arguments which had gone before which some hon. Members said were lawyers' arguments. The arguments were met in full by the Leader of the Liberal Party. He said that by the end of the year we shall have worked

out what all this has meant. My right hon. and learned Friend paid particular attention to the three undertakings which the Home Secretary gave—the first about retrospective criminality, the second about no effect on civil proceedings and the third that the Bill confers no extra powers on Stormont. That might not be so in the letter of the law, but it certainly does in the spirit of the law. We are in fact saying, "For all your failures, your ineptitudes, your stupidities"—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Treacheries."]—" yes, indeed, treacheries, we are going to put our troops under your control."
10.45 p.m.
My right hon. and learned Friend must recall that it is the policy of our party that control for security should be transferred from Stormont to this Parliament. By imposing a time limit making it necessary for this House to look again at this matter, without it having to be pushed through in this short time without all the documents being available and without an opportunity to refer to all the cases, we as a party are presented with a positive opportunity to support our party policy in the Division Lobby.
While we are concerned to protect the rôle of British troops in Northern Ireland, we have no intention of giving Stormont a blank cheque for whatever emergency regulations it might occur to it to introduce in the future. We have had no undertakings that there will be no further emergency regulations of a more sweeping nature introduced under these powers, and we have had no undertaking that existing regulations will not be amended in such a way as to make them even more regressive.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my hon. Friend also agree that, if the Government were to accept this Amendment, which is only a temporary one, it would be possible in the next few months to put before the House legislation which it could consider in the detailed way that the Government would wish to see if it were not for the stresses and strains of this emergency? That being so, should not the Amendment be acceptable to the Government?

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend has put much more succinctly than I could what was to be my final point. A number of hon. Members have pointed out what


a pity it is that Parliament is being rushed in this way. If the Government were prepared to accept this moderate, considerate Amendment, we should be able to deal with this legislation in a more detailed manner at a later date.
If the Government will accept the Amendment, I shall be quite happy. If they refuse to accept it, I shall urge my hon. Friends to go into the Division lobby with Liberal hon. Members.

Mr. John Mendelson: I did not seek to speak on Second Reading because I accepted fully what was said earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he assured the Government of our co-operation in facilitating the passage of this legislation. However, I think that the Government should consider whether it is not their constitutional duty to meet the desire which has been expressed by a number of hon. Members. The Home Secretary has obtained from the House the very unusual agreement to pass legislation in a few hours. The right hon. Gentleman needs no teaching from anyone about the extraordinary nature of this procedure. He knows that it is normally only at the outbreak of war that a Government asks this House for such a procedure to be adopted, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had fully in mind the considerations which have impelled the Government to ask for this procedure.
There is no reason to show any impatience when the House is asked to accept this kind of procedure. There is every reason for listening to the contributions of my hon. Friends. The point at issue is substantial. The Home Secretary has made declarations—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) calls them assurances—dealing with three points. I prefer to call them declarations because the evidence of the debate is that these points will remain in doubt. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and some of my hon. Friends remain unconvinced. If there were more time, if only Second Reading took place tonight, as is usual, with Committee Stage in eight or ten days' time, we would have the opportunity to consult experts and the opinions that have been expressed could be tested and resolved. It is because the House has

agreed to take all stages tonight that there is no such opportunity and the problems remain unresolved. It is therefore reasonable to ask the Government to agree to bring this Measure back to the House.
I do not disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend when he says that a useful alternative method to this Amendment would be a form of assurance from the Treasury Bench that after a certain period, say six months, the Government would bring this Measure back to the House and give us another opportunity to review it. If it is merely a debate, I agree with the right hon. Member for Devon, North, that that is not enough. I appreciated the immediate assurance by the Leader of the House that there would be an early debate. If that had not been given, this would have been a much longer debate, in which my hon. Friends would have wished to introduce wider considerations. We need a definite agreement by the Government that after a time—although no Amendment may be made—they will respond to the request of my right hon. and learned Friend. Then it would not be necessary to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) would pursue his argument a little further. I can see that the Amendment, if carried, would limit the indemnity which we are giving to the Forces in Northern Ireland to a period of 12 months. I cannot understand why that is fundamental. It is implicit in the Amendment that there should be some further enabling legislation giving further, possibly permanent, indemnity. All we ask is for time to reconsider the position with greater calmness, when we have had an opportunity of looking at the many flaws which have been discovered—and examining those which have yet to be uncovered. The Government could reasonably accept the Amendment and return, if they were still of the same mind, with exactly the same legislation in 12 months' time. They might find on reflection that it would be better to have the kind of permanent legislation for which I was arguing earlier. I hope my right hon. Friends will consider whether their attitude is what is required at this moment and


whether they could not support this Amendment.

Sir Elwyn Jones: My hon. and learned Friend asks me to take my argument a little further, but I must confess that I see nothing explicit or implicit in the Amendment to suggest that alternative legislation is to be brought forward.

Mr. Thorpe: Come off it.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am not coming off or on, but just endeavouring to answer this question. I have said clearly that we on this side of the Committee require reconsideration of the whole position of this House in regard to Stormont and the exercise of security powers and authority over security forces in Northern Ireland. I have said that these matters of fundamental importance should be made subject to urgent consideration by Parliament and I should have thought that that would be an occasion for thrashing out the kind of permanent future legislation we want, rather than this Amendment which I submit has a fundamental defect. I submit that it has the fundamental defect of exposing our Armed Forces in 12 months time to the risk of civil action.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: What the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has just said is entirely reasonable. Although the Leader of the Liberal Party made a good speech in moving this Amendment, it is a wrecking Amendment and would place a time bomb under British troops in Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that it will be vigorously resisted by my Front Bench. There is nothing to preclude the House from looking at the problem of Northern Ireland at any time, or introducing legislation at any time, but now is not the time to put a wrecking Amendment into this Bill.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) has brought a very emotive note into this debate. This is not a wrecking Amendment and his remarks are unworthy of him.
To suggest that it is placing a time bomb under British troops is arrant nonsense. This Amendment would enable the House to debate the matter coolly within the period of a year. This is a subject which the House has not had an

opportunity to debate tonight. We have rushed through this legislation. We have a number of points of view which are in diametric opposition to each other. I do not know who is legally right, whether it is the Leader of the Liberal Party or the Attorney-General, because we have not had adequate opportunity to consider these matters. I have a high regard for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and, normally, I am absolutely delighted to take his leadership, but not tonight, because I cannot see the logic of his argument. How does he think it will imperil the position of our troops if we consider the matter within 12 months?
In these circumstances, I hope that it the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment, the Leader of the Liberal Party will divide the House on the matter, and I shall be pleased to support him.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: It has been suggested that if the Amendment is passed there will be plenty of opportunity to reconsider the matter over the next year.
I suggest that the House, understandably perhaps, considering the rush, is in danger of making an awful ass of itself—and the Government even more than the House. We all know in the House that these powers will be conferred, one way or another, and will be extended beyond a year. If the present Government are in power, they will do it, and if we on this side are in power, we shall do it. Everyone in the House knows that there are only two or three hon. Members who will vote against the extension of the powers. I am in favour of the Army having these powers in present circumstances. It is absolutely right and necessary that they should, so let us not talk about the effect of the Amendment being that the Army is under sentence of death after one year. One might as well say that the Army cannot look forward to having its pay at the end of one year.
On the other hand, if the Amendment is passed, we know that there will be a debate probably at the end of a year, but that legislation will not be changed because there will be no sufficient reason


to change it; and we on this side, perhaps wanting to change it, will be in the same position of complaining about the 1922 arrangements generally. That is not desirable.
There are many faults or potential faults in this legislation. I am not at all satisfied on the point about the Schedule, and there are many other points on which the legislation is at least doubtful. If Parliament is to pass legislation of this kind in four hours flat and then not accept a very moderate and modest Amendment like this—which says that we shall, not possibly but definitely, have another look at this within a year—then Parliamentary democracy has reached an even lower pitch in this country than we all know it has. For once in its life, Parliament is doing something real, having a real debate. My own Front Bench are making an awful mistake in denying the House the right to review the Measure in one year, and then to extend it, perhaps in a different form, when the House has had a better opportunity to consider the matter.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. George Cunningham), and want to rebuff some of the comments of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). I was amazed when he said that we are putting some kind of political time bomb under the Army's activities. Is not this precisely how the Commonwealth immigrants legislation, the Army Act and the Rhodesian sanctions legislation were introduced? They, too, were fundamental matters of principle which the House should not treat lightly.
I cannot help feeling that all this will look very different come Friday or Saturday. This honourable House, this Mother of Parliaments, is being judge and jury in four hours flat. Around the world it will now be said that, if the British House of Commons does not like the way the judiciary interprets the legislation it passes, it can always change the Act. Is this the example that we want to set around the world?
In passing the Bill, particularly in this rushed way, we are proving what the I.R.A. has always said—that the British Army is in the hands of Stormont. We are endorsing that, without giving the House the chance to reconsider the matter

in 12 months. To that end, surely we can accept this relatively harmless Amendment.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has distorted the spirit in which the Leader of the Liberal Party moved the Amendment. I fully understand the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman moved it. I ask the Committee to examine the Amendment in the context of certain matters; first, in the context of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President that there will be a debate upon the wider matters and wider issues, involving all the great issues of policy and differences of view held about this matter. It is in that debate undoubtedly that all the great matters, part of which have come into this debate, will be introduced.
Second, this is a short Bill which declares the law. In that sense it is a Bill which, if it becomes an Act, will say, "This is what the law is and this is what we declare it to be." In such a Bill it is very difficult to say, "We declare it to be and it shall be—but only for a year." What the Bill does, although hon. Members have criticised it, in the form of its declaratory nature, is to declare the law to be, as I have said several times today, what it was thought to be prior to today and what it has been held previously by an English judge to be.
Third, in the context of what I said earlier, I repeat that on behalf of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland I give the undertaking that any prosecution now pending which would follow if the judgment of today stood will be abandoned or stopped, and that no new prosecution of that kind will be initiated in relation to the past. That is a categorical undertaking that I have given on behalf of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. It deals with the point about criminality, with which my right hon. Friend dealt.
On the point about no extra powers for Stormont, both my right hon. Friend and I have repeated time and again that the Bill is to put the position back to what it was believed to have been this morning, namely, giving the power to Stormont to use their special powers and to apply them to the Army so that the Army can exercise the duties it is called upon to perform.
With regard to civil claims, we must make it perfectly clear—I think that my right hon. Friend made it clear—I think that my right hon Friend made it clear —that the Bill will not act retrospectively affecting civil claims based on any matter other than the technical defect in the powers of the troops, as affected by the Bill. In other words, in respect of this defect, as revealed by this judgment and put right, as it were, by the Bill—only in that sense are claims affected. Civil claims will be unaffected if they are claims about an excess of power which has been used, if it ever has been used. Those claims would remain exactly as they were before the introduction of the Bill.
Hon. Members must look at what the right hon. Gentleman intends. He is right to bring it to the attention of the House. But what he seeks to do is to make a very substantial Amendment to the Special Powers Act. He wants to make the addition of those special powers temporary. But the Bill is merely the vehicle of putting back the law into the position in which it was always thought to be.

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has not been present during most of our debate, and many other hon. Members have been in the Chamber the whole time.
If one does that with a declaratory Act of Parliament, and then one looks at the Statute Book thereafter, one sees that the Bill would set out to say that the law shall have had effect and has always had that effect, as is provided, so as not to preclude the provisions of these particular powers—and then at the end one would say that it will last for only one year. To that extent it does not make sense of this form of provision in the law.
In these circumstances while, as I have said, I well appreciate what the right hon. Member for Devon, North, said in moving the Amendment, having given the assurances about the criminal law and about the extra powers, which it is denied will be given to Stormont, and in respect of civil claims. I advise the Committee to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Hooson: What the Leader of the Liberal Party is seeking in the Amendment is quite simple. We have been given certain assurances by the Government, but we have not had the assurance

that the Bill, which we are asked to pass in a very short time with little or no consideration, can be guaranteed to have further consideration by the House within a year.
The Amendment was drafted originally with the words
unless renewed in pursuance of affirmative resolution of the House of Commons
That was held to be out of order and that part of it had to be dropped if the Amendment were to be considered at all. The House has clearly expressed its view that the cloak of legality should be extended over what our soldiers have been doing because they have been doing it in our name. But we do not know the constitutional implication of the Amendment to the Special Powers Act. I have expressed my view in a speech, but how often have we known right hon. and learned Gentlemen to assure the House about the effect of legislation only to find that the courts have ruled later that they were wrong and that the effect has been totally different.
I am astounded at the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). He suggested that the fatal objection to this Amendment was that the troops would be uncertain at the end of the year. It is conceivable that the House of Commons, feeling as it does, would not approve legislation to put that matter right within a year? The right hon. and learned Member has stood at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions and introduced important matters such as sanctions and Acts concerning the Services which have to be renewed from year to year. He surely knows that here we are seeking the same kind of assurances in quite exceptional circumstances.
The House had no idea at 2.30 p.m. today that it was to be asked to pass the Bill. It is a very important Bill, otherwise the Government would not have brought it forward. Hon. Members in all parts of the House consider that the protection of our troops is very important. But equally, the protection of the rights of the House, the protection of our constitutional position, is very important.
We are being asked to pass a piece of amending legislation which has a tremendous retrospective effect and we are asking for the right to seek the guarantee that we should be allowed to consider


it afresh within a year. On this issue, at least, I hope that the Chief Whip of the Labour Party will allow a free vote for his party.

Mr. George Cunningham: We are all in a difficulty, and I want to make a suggestion, if I am in order to do so. Given the difficulty of making Amendments, I hope that I shall be permitted some elasticity.
As it stands, the Clause achieves two quite different objectives. First, it corrects the position as it has been in the past and, second, it creates a situation for the future. For the past, no one would surely wish in a year's time to have the validation of the previous position terminated. But for the future people may well want a different arrangement than that provided in the Bill.

I appeal to the Attorney-General to consider the possibility of himself bringing forward an Amendment which would be similar, basically, to that of the leader of the Liberal Party. It might say:
Save in respect of Acts and regulations made after February 1973 the Bill will lapse.

That would get round the difficulty of a declaratory provision apparently ceasing to be on the Statute Book, unless continued, but would give the House the right automatically to reconsider the new provision giving to Stormont a power which it was thought to have had, but which it has turned out not to have had. That would be an extremely attractive compromise.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 158.

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[11.17 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lamond, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)



Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, J. Kevin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Milne, Edward
Mr. David Steel and


Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley
Mr. John Pardoe.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kitson, Timothy


Astor, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Batsford, Brian
Fowler, Norman
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Loveridge, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
Luce, R. N.


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
MacArthur, Ian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grylls, Michael
McLaren, Martin


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gummer, Selwyn
McMaster, Stanley


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maddan, Martin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maginnis, John E.


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol


Carlisle, Mark
Haselhurst, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Chapman, Sydney
Havers, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Moate, Roger


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Molyneaux, James


Coombs, Derek
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Monro, Hector


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
More, Jasper


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Morrison, Charles


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. James
Jessel, Toby
Mudd, David


Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Murton, Oscar


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jopling, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Normanton, Tom


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Osborn, John


Emery, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Eyre, Reginald
Kinsey, J. R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kirk, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil




Percival, Ian
Sharples, Richard
Waddington, David


Pink, R. Bonner
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wall, Patrick


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walters, Dennis


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Soref, Harold
Ward, Dame Irene


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Spence, John
Weatherhill, Bernard


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stanbrook, Ivor
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Sutcliffe, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Redmond, Robert
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wilkinson, John


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John



Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trew, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Russell, Sir Ronald
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Keith Speed and


Scott, Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Victor Goodhew

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SCOTTISH HOSPITAL TRUST

11.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I beg to move,
That the Scottish Hospital Trust Regulations 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
With permission, I will deal at the same time with my following Motion,
That the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
Since the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1971, received the Royal Assent just over a year ago a good deal of preparatory work has been done. In particular, the Scottish Hospital Trust was constituted on 1st September, and has since appointed its secretary and investment adviser. What we are doing now is, firstly, to set up the arrangements under which the relevant endowments—that is, those given to Scottish Health Service hospitals up to 5th November, 1946—will be transferred to the trust on the appointed day.
My right hon. Friend proposes to make an Order appointing 1st April, 1972, for this purpose. From that day, the trust will hold and manage these endowments,

and distribute the income to hospital authorities under schemes to be made by the Secretary of State from time to time. These, the House will recall, are the principal provisions of the Act, which, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) will remember, was a largely agreed Measure.
I hope the House will agree that it is sensible and convenient to debate these two instruments together. Although they are quite distinct in their purpose they really form one package. Essentially, the regulations cover the transfer arrangements and the questions of future as well as outstanding borrowings. The Scheme lays down how the Trust is to distribute the income and how it is to be used.
We have consulted hospital authorities about these proposals. On the whole, their reaction has been favourable. The Scottish Hospital Trust, which will have to deal with the practical effect of the instruments, is quite happy about them.
I turn now to the detailed provisions, and first to the regulations.
In regulation 4, two main groups of endowments are excepted from transference. Two hospital boards are excluded altogether because of special circumstances applying to them. Also excluded are a number of heritable properties which we have decided, having considered them under Section 2(4) of the Act, should be left with the boards concerned. These are set out in the Schedule.
Regulation 5 prescribes special conditions attaching to two particular endowment funds. Each of these boards has, as part of its relevant endowments, a fund which it can spend on certain purposes without the normal obligation to replace the capital. We are simply continuing these arrangements.
Regulation 6 lays down the arrangements for valuing the endowments transferred. This is important in connection with income distribution, as I shall be explaining in a moment. There is provision for stating each board's share in the Trust's capital initially and for revising this in certain circumstances.
Regulation 7 deals with borrowings. It has always been open to boards to use their endowment capital for hospital or specialist services or for medical research, subject to certain approvals where it was proposed to spend more than £1,000, and provided they replaced the capital within 30 years. Section 6 of the Act continues this facility, and this Regulation fills in the details.
I now turn to the Scheme. It provides how the net income of the trust is to be distributed to hospital authorities. In the first place each hospital board of management—except the two excluded—and also the Committee of the State Hospital, will receive £3 per bed per annum and regional hospital boards will receive a fixed sum. The balance of the Trust's income will then be shared among all hospital boards in proportion to the value of the endowments which they have transferred to the Trust. The Browning Working Party, which was set up by the previous Government. and for whose report I am most grateful, estimated that the total income per bed represented by these endowments would, for the poorest endowed hoard, rise from about £1·70 to about £3·75 per bed.
We are continuing the previous provisions with regard to the use of endowment income. Paragraph 4 expresses these in detail. Quite simply, the money must be used for hospital or specialist purposes or for medical research. For capital or research purposes certain clearances are required if the expenditure will exceed £2,000—this figure is being raised from the present £1,000. Finally, certain special purposes of a memorial nature are provided for. These are existing conditions of specific endowments which the boards have asked us to retain. Some of these purposes would not be legitimate if they were not included here, because they do not constitute hospital or specialist services or medical research.
I should perhaps add something about the effect of health service reorganisation on these arrangements. The 1971 Act will remain in force, but amendments to the Act and revision of the Statutory Instruments will be necessary. Our intention, however, is that their effect will not be altered, and that health boards will be required to use the income for hospital purposes, and indeed, so far as practicable, to devote it to the same hospitals in their area as would have benefited previously.
I end with a brief apology. The House may have noticed that in two places—one in the regulations and one in the Scheme—the regulations are referred to as being of 1971. This is an obvious slip and will be corrected when the instruments are made.
I hope the House will approve the two instruments.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: It is evident from the mass exodus when the Minister rose that this subject is not so dramatic as the subject we have been discussing for the last few hours, but it is nevertheless fitting that we should pay tribute to the people who many years ago gave money to hospitals to make the lives of patients easier and to help research. The reputation of Scottish hospitals has benefited greatly from the generosity of the Scottish people, which has enabled hospitals to undertake specialist research and to raise their standards.
The Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1971, was basically an agreed Measure, and the Browning Working Party was set up by the previous Government. I am glad that provision has been made to preserve the memorial nature of some of the endowments, as this will give a sense of continuity. This applies particularly to prizes for nurses and internees at certain hospitals. I am also glad to know that, in general, hospital boards are in agreement with the purpose of the Instruments.
Paragraph 5 of the Trust Regulations begins:
At the request of the Board of Management for the Astley Ainslie, Edenhall and Associated Hospitals, the Secretary of State may direct …".


Is this a convenient way of proceeding, a request having been made to the Secretary of State?
How much is involved in the value of the capital of the funds of Astley Ainslie and Associated Hospitals and the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary? Why, in this case, are the funds allowed to meet only capital expenditure, whereas the funds of the trusts normally meet revenue expenditure and further powers are required to meet capital expenditure in those other cases?
I am glad that the Minister has reached the point of being able to bring these regulations forward. We hope that in future the trust funds will operate as in the past and that the endowment system applying to Scottish hospitals will prove as productive for the hospitals system.

Mr. Monro: I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) for his acceptance of the regulations and the Scheme. I wish also to express my gratitude to the people of Scotland for the funds they have provided. They have been of enormous help to our hospitals.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the memorial provision. This will enable prizes to be given, particularly at teaching hospitals. It is important to look after the grave stones and property bequeathed to hospitals, often many years ago.
The capital funds of the Astley Ainslie and Associated Hospitals total about £200,000, and for the Royal Infirmary the sum—this is only in respect of the Sir Robert McVitie Grant Dermatological Fund—is £10,000. Both of these funds were set up so that the capital could be used when required, and this is why special provision for them is being made in these instruments.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Scottish Hospital Trust Regulations 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved—[Mr. Monro.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I propose to suspend the Sitting of the House and, for the convenience of the House, the Division bells will ring when the Sitting resumes.

Sitting suspended at twenty-two minutes to twelve o'clock and resumed at two minutes past two o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks, as follows:
The Lords have agreed to the Northern Ireland Bill, without Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Civil List Act, 1972.
2. Airports Authority Act, 1972.
3. Mineral Exploration and Investment Grants Act, 1972.
4. Northern Ireland Act, 1972.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposea, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

SCHOOL CHILDREN (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES)

2.3 a.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I welcome this opportunity to raise the very serious problem of maintenance allowances for children at school.
As from September of this year, all children in Britain will have to stay at school until they are 16 years of age. I am all in favour of that, and I am glad that the Government are going ahead with that very long overdue reform. But, in order that the reform may be fully effective, I believe that it is necessary to examine the provision that we make to enable all our children, wherever they


may live and whatever the circumstances of their parents or the families to which they belong, to take full advantage of the educational facilities which are offered.
Under Section 81 of the Education Act, 1944, local education authorities are empowered under regulations by the Secretary of State to provide help by way of free meals, for instance, or the provision of transport, the payment of travelling expenses, and various grants for clothing, including P.E. clothing, to enable children to benefit in full from what our schools have to offer.
There is also provision for the award of maintenance allowances to pupils over the compulsory school age. It is the latter provision with which I want to deal. These allowances are payable only to those who stay at school after the statutory leaving age and are completely within the discretion of the local education authorities. Even the amount payable is decided locally. In 1956 the Minister of Education, as he then was, set up a working party to consider the effects of such allowances and whether changes ought to be made in the scheme then operative.
That working party confirmed the need for such a scheme and drew up a recommended scale of allowances to be payable according to the income of parents. These were for the guidance of local authorities and nothing more. No other scales have been laid down since that time 15 years ago and on that score alone it seems worth another look. My recent investigations, begun as a result of representations by my constituents convince me that a complete reappraisal is urgently necessary, and I hope for a favourable response from the Minister.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that on 20th January, in answer to a Written Question he said that no regular information was collected about the numbers receiving these allowances and I can understand that because they are discretionary. There was a special ad hoc return called for for the spring term of 1970 which showed that the parents of 20,000 children were receiving the allowance. That means that the scheme is not working. That shows a scandalous state of affairs because there must be thousands of families who do not know their rights or who are denied the necessary allow

ance because the adjustments to the income scale have not kept pace with the rising cost of living. I could quote examples of families where the breadwinner is either sick, disabled or unemployed and where the family is not entitled, on the income scale laid down, to a maintenance allowance from the local education authority.
When the Minister invited various local authority representatives and teacher organisations to take part in the 1956 working party it was said that the total expenditure on maintenance allowances ought not to increase and could possibly be diminished, while still giving adequate help where needed. That sort of advice was nonsense then and is nonsense now, certainly when there are over a million unemployed and when there are families whose income is inadequate if the childen are to have the necessities to enable them to take full advantage of what the schools are to offer. The Minister also said that he was inviting the working party to make recommendations because there was a need to introduce a considerably greater degree of uniformity among authorities. That is true. It is undeniable that allowances at present are inadequate, unevenly distributed and are not meeting the needs of the children for whom they were introduced.
There is agreement in this House that for all our children, wherever they may live, in whatever circumstances, the Government and certainly hon. Members on this side are anxious to make the sort of provision which will enable all our children to receive full benefit from education. The Minister knows, as I do, that in report after report, evidence has been produced that early leaving is often due to financial hardship. I am sure that the Under-Secretary is as anxious as I am to remove at least that factor which compels some children to leave school before reaching anything like their full potential.
I shall give an example from the Northern Region. There, I know because I used to be a member, there is a North-East Council of Education Committees. All the education committees in the area meet from time to time to discuss various educational matters and they review the income scale for maintenance allowances and agree how the scale shall be administered in the areas they cover. In the scheme, which I


have examined carefully, I find that annual joint gross income of both parents is assessed from all sources including social security payments, widows pension and so on.
Deductions allowable include £120 for each dependent child under 18, and £180 for any dependent over 18. Rent, rates or mortgage are also allowed up to a maximum of £4·25 a week or £221 a year. The maximum allowance payable to the 15-year-old is £123 per annum, and to qualify for the maximum allowance net income must not exceed £375 per year or £7·75 a week. The Under-Secretary will agree that this is ludicrous in present circumstances.
I know that the northern authorities are reviewing the scale now because of representations made, but I think this justifies a new approach. A man, wife, and two children, one 12 and the other 15, with a gross income of £18 per week, paying rent of £2·50 a week would qualify for £18 a year. I suggest that with a 15-year-old in full-time education, many families need much greater help than that. It bears no relation to real need, and after September the 15-yearold will receive nothing.
The governing bodies of schools and divisional executives in Durham have protested to the county education authority, which in turn has made representations to the Minister about the withdrawal of grants from the 15-year-olds. Because of the school leaving age being raised, according to law, only those over school leaving age—16 plus—will be entitled even to be considered for allowances, and I am surprised to see from a copy of a letter from the Minister to the Durham authority dated 21st December last year, that no amendment of the law is contemplated.
I therefore make the following suggestions: the law should be amended to enable children below statutory leaving age to qualify for allowance. The Minister knows, because we have discussed it in the Chamber and in other places before, that in the Northern Region, many people will be staying for an extra year after next September who would otherwise have left school. I welcome this.
In the Northern Region, unfortunately, for various reasons, not just lack of finance, we have some leeway to make

up in the number of children staying on. I can see—this is borne out by representations from divisional executives and governing bodies—real hardship unless allowances are made available for 15year-olds who will have to stay on until they are 16. We should remember that income per capita in the Northern Region is only about 79 per cent. of the national average, according to the 1968–69 count.
My second proposal is that the scheme should be made mandatory on all authorities, with an income scale laid down, as we had for free school meals, so that equality of treatment is achieved for all children, irrespective of the meanness or otherwise of various local education authorities. If there is one thing that parents are concerned about, it is that living in one place attracts a higher grant than in another.
Third, in establishing the scheme, we have to have regard to the earning capacity of 16-year-olds. I know that this was disregarded by the working party and I would not say that it should be the yardstick or anything like it, but, in persuading parents of the worth of an extra year, some regard has to be paid to the earning capacity of school children who might have been at work. The Minister will agree that this scheme would be a very sound investment in the nation's future, bringing benefit not only to society in general but to individual pupils.
Finally, the Department should launch a publicity campaign, whatever happens, to make parents aware of the scheme which is in operation now, inadequate though it may be. A total of only 20,000 throughout England and Wales means that the scheme is not working. The Department has some responsibility in this matter. All parents need to be aware of their entitlement, and these young men and women—for that is what they are—of 15 and 16 should feel that, by continuing their education as all of us want them to do, they are not a "drag" on their parents, but that, of right, they are compensated by some allowance, and have some independence.
This is a vital matter. With the raising of the school leaving age, it is becoming urgent. I could bring very hard cases to the Minister's notice if I had the time. The Minister should accept this kind of reappraisal, so that, all over the country, in remote rural areas, cities and


towns, wherever children are attending school and wherever we want them to profit from their education, they will be able to receive as of right an allowance which will not depend upon the local education authority and its generosity or its anxiety to keep down rates but will be a national scheme, administered locally of course, but mandatory on every authority in the country.

2.19 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): As always, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) has put forward his case not only with great personal knowledge but with an obvious sincerity. I shall do my best to answer the particular points he has raised. Probably neither of us had supposed that we should either be speaking so far into the morning, as we are, or that we should be doing so after what is, after all, one of the historic moments in Parliament's life.
I well remember the hon. Gentleman raising this point before. When I saw this Adjournment debate on the list, I recalled that he raised this point when he and I were members of Standing Committee A, considering the Education (Milk) Bill on 6th July. In a way, that is relevant to one or two points I shall make shortly, but I shall return to that.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is understandable and good that there should be a searchlight on the possibilities and availabilities of these particular grants at a time when we are contemplating, very shortly, the raising of the school leaving age. I am delighted to join with him across the Floor of the House in welcoming that event. It is a very important moment in our educational history.
I recognise that by reference to a date, which is 1st September, 1972, and by reference to whether a young person is 15 before or after that date, so will it be determined whether, as the law stands at present, that person is entitled to one of the awards about which the hon. Gentleman is speaking. The hon. Gentleman puts it perfectly fairly that, as the law stands at present, if they are 15 before that date, they will be entitled, and entitled throughout the coming

school year, whereas he is perfectly right that if their 15th birthday should fall after that date they will not be entitled.
It is always tough to be on the wrong side of any particular given date. But both sides of the House would concede that if we are to raise the school leaving age, there has to be a date in the calendar from which that process starts. I must, therefore, establish clearly—the hon. Gentleman hinted at this—that if there were to be any change in this matter in respect of the grants being available to those below the compulsory school leaving age, this would require legislation. The matter derives from the Education Act. I shall not go into the references now. My right hon. Friend and her successors as Secretary of State could not do this by order made under the Act. It would require legislation.
In all fairness and directness to the hon. Gentleman, I ought to say that I see no prospect of legislation being introduced to that end; apart from all other considerations—I have other considerations—certainly not in time to affect the raising of the school leaving age. It would be only right and proper to make that point clearly. Nor am I convinced by the hon. Gentleman's case on this particular point. This is a very personal subject on which, in general principle, it would be right for the House to continue to entrust discretion to local authorities.
When talking about allowances, the hon. Gentleman said that they were unevenly distributed. He referred to a table of figures, which I think I gave not long ago in Answer to a Question on this matter and which was set out in HANSARD. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would have expected just exactly that. In the county, part of which he represents in the House, I notice that the number of pupils in receipt of educational maintenance allowances was 1,127 on the date chosen. In the county of which I represent a part there were 62. That is wildly different but the conditions in Berkshire are significantly different from the conditions in part of the county of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West.
I do not find it a matter for criticism that in a county such as I represent, with a high rate of employment and,


broadly speaking, very good economic conditions, fewer children are being assisted. I am not seeking, to say that every child in either county who ought to receive it is necessarily doing so. I would have expected uneven distribution if local authorities are to exercise their discretion according to local circumstances.
Successive Governments have regarded these allowances as an additional incentive, sometimes a determining incentive, to parents—who, by law, can remove their children from school—to allow their children to remain in school. They are glad to do so and without the allowances it would often be impossible. But they have never been seen as an additional social benefit during the compulsory years. I noticed with interest that the hon. Member made his plea for an amendment to the law almost exclusively on the basis of the age of 15. He would, I think, agree with me that if the law was to be altered fundamentally it would have to be altered so that local education authorities had the discretion over the whole range of the compulsory school age. He nods his assent so we think alike on this. There would clearly be no point in doing it only for the age of 15 although I could see the 15-yearolds in the year the school leaving age was raised thinking if they had been born a year earlier they would have had the allowance.
The argument the hon. Member is putting to me is that over the whole range of our compulsory school age we should have this additional allowance. It would then become something quite different from what it has been since it was first initiated. Surely the weapons available to the State under successive Governments in respect of children who are compulsorily at school have advanced very considerably. It could be argued they have not advanced enough. The hon. Member referred to allowances in respect of school uniforms, assistance with travel and this sort of thing. But then, over the years, there have been the social security benefits under successive Governments culminating in, for example, such totally new projects as the Family Income Supplement. These are a new injection of State assistance and help for families who are in social need.
Against that background of change and extension of social provision by the State we have to ask whether the right way forward is to provide the maintenance allowance for those who are of compulsory school age. I prefer to look at it in this way: as from this year a significant number of children who would otherwise have been under great social pressure to leave school at 15 will be buttressed by the law. Both the hon. Gentleman and I are delighted that that will be so. If they thereafter stay on over 16, and if they might then want to leave for economic reasons, we still have the maintenance allowance to assist them. But below that age there is the buttress of the law, and since these allowances came into operation we have added a number of social security weapons to our armoury.
I am asked, however, whether we should not make the allowances mandatory, even if I am limiting myself to those aged 16-plus. I am not trying to make a debating point, but it was significant that the last time the hon. Gentleman and I discussed the subject it was on a Bill when he was critical of me for, as he said, removing from local authorities a certain discretion which he thought they should have. There is a considerable difference in principle. But what the hon. Gentleman is advocating is yet one further reduction in the discretion given to locally-elected people, and that is something we should not want to embark upon without very careful thought and inquiry.
There are significant differences between this matter and the reasons why we have in the past, rightly, made awards for higher degrees, for example, mandatory. The greater number of the students are in institutions outside the awarding authority's area and so on. But the case of school allowances seems to me pre-eminently a case for local discretion. I should be reluctant to take that local discretion away.
I am also unhappy with the argument that we should make the allowances reflect earning power. That is exceedingly difficult.
But I welcome the debate, despite the hour, because it is valuable that parents should be made increasingly aware of what is available, and that local authorities should know that we in this House


are interested in the problem. Local education authorities should know that they have the discretionary powers to make the awards at the levels they determine. The hon. Gentleman gave an example. I hope that that part of the debate will have been useful—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Three o'clock a.m.